It may not affect us, but it has had a severely negative impact on those countries that at their hands until Putin invaded Ukraine. The German army, once considered to be one of the strongest militaries in the world, by their own admission, is in shambles.
The last time the German military was "among the strongest in the world" was during WWII. They're currently spending 1.57% of their GDP on defense. Would increasing that by 0.43% make or break NATO? I tend to doubt it.
I got that number from the website. In the article it states,
The Defence Investment Pledge endorsed in 2014 called for Allies to meet the 2% of GDP guideline for defence spending and the 20% of annual defence expenditure guideline on major new equipment by 2024. Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a majority of Allies have committed to investing more, and more quickly, in defence.
In 2014, three Allies spent 2% of GDP or more on defence. In 2024, 18 Allies are expected to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defence. On a collective basis, in 2014, NATO Allies in Europe invested 1.47% of their combined GDP in defence. That figure has risen steadily over a decade, and will reach 2% in 2024 for the first time. Since the Defence Investment Pledge was made in 2014, European Allies and Canada will have added more than USD 600 billion for defence by the end of 2024.
So they all agreed in 2014 to start dedicating more of their GDP to defense spending, and since then have done exactly that, with some currently meeting or exceeding the 2% target, others being less than half a percent under that, and a minority (mostly smaller countries) being between 1.0% and 1.5%.
I certainly don't see that as a reason to start threatening them. And actually a good diplomat would tell them "Good job, keep it up" thereby strengthening NATO, rather than undermining it.
Of course it's relevant. Do you think our NATO allies would have been combat ready enough to face an enemy like Russia or China if they had been the ones who attacked us one 9/11?
Yes, I do think they would have been ready to come to our aid.
It was the United States that did most of the heavy lifting in Bush's 'war on terror'.
Well yeah, seeing as how we're (by far) the largest NATO country and spend (by our own volition) more on defense than the rest of the world combined.
I mean, we can't intentionally spend that much on defense and then get upset when we use it.
Because NATO is a significant deterrent from Russian aggression. If NATO were too disappear tomorrow, I have no doubt Putin would invade those countries that are under NATO protection.
No. We were talking about the worry of him invading Poland. Which I think is a needless worry because Poland is a NATO country.
Because he's not stupid. You really think he would risk a direct confrontation with the United States?
So we agree that as it currently exists, NATO is an effective deterrent to Russian aggression and expansion. Good.
No. Which is why I was irritated by Trump's comments. It's one thing to criticize Europe's financial commitments to NATO. It's another to say you wouldn't help them if they were to be invaded.
And it's even worse to encourage Russia to invade a NATO country and say that if Putin did so, we would let them "do whatever the hell they want".
I have been reconsidering my support for him as of late. I would have preferred DeSantis for the nomination, if only because I think he's a bit more level headed and he doesn't have all of the baggage that Trump carries with him. But that ship has sailed. It's going to be Trump v. Biden yet again.
That's good to hear, because IMO this goes far beyond just about anything else he's done (and that's saying something). I mean,
encouraging Putin to invade a NATO ally, and saying if he did he could do whatever the hell he wants?
As I said, IMO that's treasonous. It's the sort of thing that Trumps (lol) anything else a candidate says or promises to do.
