Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

For discussions on politics and current events.
User avatar
-Eddie-
Member
Posts: 174
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:59
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by -Eddie- »

Well... I can't see that happening. Probably a tactic to get countries up to the current 2%.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by SKB »

4% is possible, if we axe the NHS and instead bring in private health insurance and make store workers rely on tips instead of a minimum wage and make the world use the Pound Sterling as the currency to buy petroleum with....

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by Lord Jim »

Well if Trump carries on along this path, he may finally shake up many of the original MATO members who currently spend only 1% or less on defence to actually spend more. Germany is being dragged screaming and kicking to increase its spending up to 2% and maybe this will give ammunition to those who want to accelerate this process. It might also show the size of increase the Defence Secretary was after to be quite reasonable and he may get the holes filled in the budget and the need to make efficiencies curtailed at least as a result. NATO upping defence spending is one of the few things that will make Putin take notice. Not to do so may embolden him.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Germany is being dragged screaming and kicking to increase its spending up to 2% and maybe this will give ammunition to those who want to accelerate this process.
I think that is a good influence... the rest of the realdonaldtrump tweeting(s) seem to be the work of a disorder described originally as
"from Greek skhizein "to split" (see schizo-) + phren (genitive phrenos) "diaphragm, heart, mind,"
so as he does not seem to have a heart... it must be the mind, then?
- where does he think the USA sits in this?
- is he really trying to squeeze his allies, so that he will be seen as the "Big Chief" by the adversaries? So that everyone will want to make a deal with him, and just with him?

When did international politics turn into some sort of "locker room bullying" type of setting? Nevermind of locker room banter...
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by Lord Jim »

Well Banter has not really achieved anything regarding defence spending across NATO, the UK included as we meet the target only through smoke and mirrors, so maybe some bullying of nations used to being the bully, and I mean Germany in the EU, may get some results.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:maybe some bullying of nations used to being the bully, and I mean Germany in the EU
That's a worthwhile point. But a double-edged sword as POTUS has made himself into a hate figure in Germany (so toddler-like behaviour would produce the exact opposite to what is being requested?).

However, they seem to have the debate in the open (as opposed to our "behid-the-closed-doors" MDP process) as in
" Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen had requested a 12 billion euro ($14.6 billion) increase to the country's military budget, which currently stands at 39 billion euros ($47.3 billion).

With German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz foreseeing a rise in defense spending of 5.5 billion euros ($6.6 billion) by 2021, the Defense Ministry slammed Scholz as "inadequate in view of the huge accumulated needs and required modernization, particularly in the medium term."

Das Bild cited Von der Leyen as saying that if the defense budget fails to get a hefty boost, she will scrap at least one international armaments project slated for 2019, including a planned submarine deal with Norway and the purchase of six C-130 Hercules transport aircraft."
- i.e the same game we have been having (keeping weapons prgrms going, but only by pinching from readiness) seems to have reached the end of the road there, too
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
-Eddie-
Member
Posts: 174
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:59
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by -Eddie- »

Well well... if it is true then he's certainly effective! :clap:

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by SKB »

2.00000000000000000001% ?

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by Pseudo »

SKB wrote:2.00000000000000000001% ?
Oh, we can exceed that. We'll just add the spending of the commander-in-chief in to the defence budget.

User avatar
-Eddie-
Member
Posts: 174
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:59
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by -Eddie- »

Surprise surprise No 10 says they welcome spending over 2% 'as we already do' :wtf:

It's unlike this government to be dishonest...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

"Here and now!" mentality reigns:
The joint session with Ukraine and Georgia started by them being thrown out
... doors were sealed, and something else (money?) was talked about

Actually, quite a welcome change of "protocol"

As a poll in Germany showed that the population would not be averse to US troops leaving, perhaps this rumoured offer from Poland ($2 bn/ yr for a US division on their soil) might become more than a rumour?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by Pseudo »

I've just noticed an amazing coincidence that in singling out Germany's trade ties with Russia, Trump is targetting the only country in the EU that Russia has a significant trade deficit with.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by Lord Jim »

It seems what Trump announced is not recognised by all the other members of NATO, they state they were simply confirming their commitment to all spend 2% by 2030 or something like that. Also when is someone in the media going to call out the UK Government about its preening regarding spending 2% of GDP on defence when we only do so by fiddling the books. I am getting really fed up with every time a Government Minister is asked a question on anything they simple sprout a prepared answer and do not deviate even when the question is re-worded. Politics is so broken it would be funny if the consequences were not so serious.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A concise summary, not a single tweet reference in it: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ne ... els-summit

I find that other than the points 4 through to 6 it is just reconfirming what has been happening anyway.
- what I find perplexing is that the new JFC in Norfolk is assisting Atlantic Command, rather than being the "Atlantic Command"? Is anyone uptodate on this one...

From the 2015 (then current) setup it would seem like a nice ("neutral") way of cutting down the importance of a 3-* command in Izmir https://www.google.com/search?q=nato+ma ... Nsw2vapETM

Having just three JHQs: North, South and for reinforcements
- where does that leave Northwood (also 3-*)?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

After "everyone" in Salzburg being nasty to us, a shoulder to cry against?
https://news.sky.com/video/square-video ... 4-11504631

The msg? Hey, everyone... wake up (to the fact that the UK still matters)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Same person speaking (the article commenting more widely: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/glo ... 8509026999)

It is clear that INF is a dead letter, but the counter proposed to Russia blatantly breaking the treaty is a good one:
Build a "Fort Trump" in Poland, for a US logs & sustainment bde
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Mr Trump's comments about US obligations under Nato are in line with his views questioning the US global role set out in his policy of "America First"."

So, how are the Pivot and America First different, if at all, as to directing more resource to matching and checking a strategic competitor (and less to fighting bush wars, of lesser national interest)?
That text is not mine, but from The Telegraph, linked upthread.

As for today, Pompeo loses his under sec. for Europe:
["]“I am proud of what we have accomplished in creating and beginning to implement the Europe Integrated Strategy in support of the National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy,” he wrote. “The emphasis that these strategies place on the need to prepare our country and the nations of the West for sustained competition with big-power rivals is both urgently necessary and long overdue,” he added. "
- time wise this coincides with the Congress passing a law against withdrawing from NATO??
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

“The emphasis that these strategies place on the need to prepare our country and the nations of the West for sustained competition with big-power rivals is both urgently necessary and long overdue,” he added. "
- time wise this coincides with the Congress passing a law against withdrawing from NATO??
Against this background, let's see what the Munich (yearly) Security Conference will come up with:
"geosecurity challenge facing Europe is not just about the ebbing of the transatlantic relationship. The former can probably be fixed. Rather, it’s the toxic combination of China and Russia’s ambitions to divide and break the West." which seems to be going 'pretty well'??
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RE: the above, and with a little bit of help from friends
"The Three Seas Initiative to date is a thinly-disguised geopolitical attempt to create a counter to the influence of both Russia to the east and of Germany to her west. The twelve central and eastern European states that are members span the space between the Baltic, the Adria and the Black Seas, hence the name. In addition to Poland and Croatia, members presently include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovenia"

Contrast this with the
"Long-term oriented Russia energy strategy in the Middle East, where the sector has witnessed rapid progress in many countries, with Russian investments in exploration, production, and transit in Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.
- One of the most spectacular pieces of infrastructure is the Turk Stream pipeline, destined to supply Russian gas to both Turkey and Southeast Europe across the Black Sea, effectively rendering attempts to diversify the EU’s gas supply lines from the Caspian Sea or Central Asia much less attractive."

So, Nordstream2 is pretty much a fact (capacity still being a bone of contention) and for the rest (of this game) Turkey emerges as a centre piece
- it started as a 'hostage' to Russian supplies
- now it is playing a willing part in trying to make for more hostages
- and, of course, from Russia's point of view, leaving Ukraine out, in the cold, is all important
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

It is unsure which one has done more for this achievement: Putin (by invading Ukraine) or Trump, who in his February State of the Union said that “we ;) " have secured a $100 billion dollar increase in defense spending by other NATO members.

Trump’s diatribes ever since he started to run for president have been predated by the growing U.S. preoccupation with East Asia (the 'Pivot') and the failure of TTIP; is it the wake wash of that happening (or just Trump) that is now generating transatlantic trade tensions.

On this side of the Pond democratic backsliding among members ( not talking turkey, but what already the previous Administrations stamped to be 'New Europe' ... I wonder if Novorussiya was pencilled in :) , too?) is pressurising the Alliance’s values-based cohesion (for now more evident on the EU side of things). Regardless, ideas of two-speed Europe are bound to resurface, to a degree due to Brexit but also because of the fact that nobody (except a university professor?) is governing the Il Surpasso economy - Italy - which was vying for the bronze medal well before Brexit. In the last ten years, when the chalk lines were approaching, the lacto acids have set in, though
- as for the sizes of leading EU economies, the moment when it fleetingly happened was not a spurt too early, but was brought about by currency swings anyway

While this two-speed structuring, setting the 'willing' free from the shackles of unanimous decision making, could be a good thing on many fronts, Macron will have to get his 'own house' in order first, for any such prospect to pick up speed
- if only just to determine whether the dividing line for the "North of the Alps" orderly Europe passes to the South or to the North of France :D
- the deeper question, though, is embedded within the linked initiatives to integrate European foreign* and defense policies* more deeply, ultimately with a great likelihood bringing about too much parallelism with what NATO is for.
====
*going by the quality of the female representatives we and Italy have nominated to those posts any movement will be a long time coming
- sometimes just as well, as the slow progress with the diplomatic service has meant that we still have (!) ours intact
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Macron will have to get his 'own house' in order first, for any such prospect to pick up speed
- if only just to determine whether the dividing line for the "North of the Alps" orderly Europe passes to the South or to the North of France
He didn't get anyone signing up to his 'NATO brain dead' brain fart, but we will soon hear if Nato will (soon) be devoid of one of its members, after Trump's meeting with his 'buddy' from Turkey. But never mind the Pivot to Asia or trouble makers like Erdogan (he has, though, been sitting tight since 2003, while inflicting ever more damage). There is a trend in Europe that the soon-to-start Commission will have to address, for Europe to stay as a player in the Top League... and we know who is doing his utmost for that not to ;) happen:

The Lisbon Treaty strengthened the concentration of decision making in the heads of state and government meeting in the European Council. The latest images of this were conveyed to TV (PC) screens with the happy back slapping when Boris got his revised (May's) deal agreed. Just one more step in the successive crisis management phases that have dominated EU nations' life from the economic impact of the financial crisis in 2008 - with the ensuing Eurozone crises in Europe’s periphery - through to the security crisis with the annexation of Crimea and the refugee influx from areas that could be described as Europe's near-abroad.

The 'politizisation' of these issues, decided at the EU level, has been unavoidable since the start of these crises as different member countries are impacted differently... and no one likes to see "their" decisions made for them.
- what will be happening next?
- some of the oldest nation states (UK and Spain, as expansions of England and Castilia-Aragon) don't seem to be able to get, while not wanting in the number of tries, sustainable elected majorities into place. That is somewhat different from, say, Germany and Italy that have their own 'coalition-forming' troubles as they are not experiencing the same kind of "end of national-level politics" due to the cross-pull of constituent nations as the UK and Spain are
- so what next? Who knows...

Going back to the Lisbon Treaty mentioned at the beginning; it basically buried a project that was driven from the Commission and called a "Europe of Regions"
- nation states : Round 1
- this round still needs 'declaring'
... and even then we'll still be at a draw. But I would not bet on the armies of Catalonia and Scotland making a huge contribution to NATO's frontline
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The prep for NATO Ldn Summit 3-4 Dec included
Heiko " Maas told reporters, the “political arm” of NATO must be strengthened.

“We should get advice from experts, from people who understand these issues,” he said.

During the talks, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian also tabled a similar proposal but called instead for a “wise persons” group of senior officials to examine the political aspects of NATO’s decision making.
- just that the scene moves so fast that to bury the issues into a "committee" isn't the answer
- the EU has a "political wing" and still shows no willingness to deal with Turkey head-on
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

And what would those 'wise men' be looking into?

Turkey is at risk of drifting away from the alliance, but that is not of Trump's making. It started in 2003 when the Erdogan flavour of Islamism set about dismantling the country's secular constitution. Whereas Trumps actions (and the prospect of Brexit) have definitely created momentum around the question whether Europe should have its own defence force, or just keep expanding the joint specialist functions, should Uncle Sam not be available.

'New' things also keep popping up: should Article 5 be enforced in space, and how, when the space forces of Russia/ US/ China are powering ahead?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

BBC newspice/ backgrounder on the summit had this graph in it https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/768/cpspr ... _v3-nc.png
and hilariously my screen fails to reproduce the colouring difference between the last two categories as given in the key to the graph.

So, Belgium and Spain have defected (by means of their low, relative to GDP, defence expenditure)!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

But which is the best pal of Trump (within NATO?). Is it Boris or is it the guy who has given the following headaches to deal with - some of which may fall more with EU's than NATO's competency... perhaps it's all part and parcel ( :roll: ):
deployment of Russian S-400 missiles,
military intervention in Syria... err against the kurds rather than anyone else,
agreement with Libya (err, who in there) on maritime boundaries,
expulsion of jihadists of EU origin,
and drilling operations around Cyprus (drilling ships flagged somewhere else but Turkish naval vessels 'escorting' them)

Discuss ;)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply