NATO’s upcoming summit is expected to be a tense affair, with President Trump’s call for military spending increases across Europe’s member nations expected to be a divisive issue. The concern of other NATO nations to President Trump’s upcoming summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin is also expected to be a topic of discussion.
While Trump’s demands differ little from those of past administrations, NATO nations have been very public about expecting a confrontation this time. European Council President Donald Tusk was already going after Trump in public statements on Tuesday.
Tusk warned Trump needs to “appreciate your allies, after all you don’t have that many.” This statement followed Trump complaining about the trade deficit with the European Union and the expectation that the US will keep spending on defense for Europe.
NATO nations largely don’t intend to meet US demands on military spending. In prior years, this has been a subject of some brief tension but quickly forgotten about after the summit. Many Congressional leaders are more comfortable with this approach as well.
That’s why the Senate voted 97-2 on Tuesday to pass a non-binding resolution expressing support for NATO. The bill urges the US to remain committed to NATO’s mutual self-defense clause, and calls on Trump to rush moves against Russia for meddling in elections. Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT) were the two no votes.
NATO props up the US military-industrial complex and the other members’ lavish welfare states. So naturally career politicians on both sides of the Atlantic favor the status quo.
In fact anything that goes into the nato or military budgets of any nations on earth drains their abilities to afford “lavish” welfare states (go tell that to Greece, Spain and Italy, btw – all of europe has been dragged down for decades by this alliance with the US, on top of being dragged into useless and endless wars in Afghanistan and Libya etc, add to that the refugee crisis in Europe now from all the peoples fleeing form the results of those US/Nato wars. what a mess).
and yes, Strider73, about the military complex. It’s the Warfare State which is the true enemy of mankind – whether that’s nato or the USA or china’s ballooning military, whatever etc
“Lavish”??? You mean normal welfare for the people, rather than only for the rich and the warmakers.
Apparently “promote the general welfare” is lavish.
Most Trumpers think he’s being tough on NATO or is even somehow against NATO by asking them to spend twice as much on weapons.
Shows you the level of cult brainwashing going on in the USA.
Most Trumpers probably figure he wants to sell more U.S. weapons to the suckers.
Its not deep thought and requires little brainwashing; either NATO makes itself more useful or it can go hang.
If it happens to break up, bonus.
Hey, what’s the bother? The dastardly Russians swung the election over to Trump, the story goes, over anti-Rusia war-queen Clinton, and Trump will soon make nice with Putin. So why worry? Sure, it’s a peace scare but Europe likes it, obviously. Could hurt profits. Deal with it, Senators.
Phooey on the Senate!
“……Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT) were the two no votes.”
only two willing to stand up to the outdated and very aggressive nato/military- industrial complex, eh??
do not expect much if any relief from the US military aggressiveness world-wide from anyone in the US Senate
really the whole nato thing should be abolished, and reasonable relationships established with Russia both for Europe and the US
Naturally the GOP, after ballooning US defense spending, suggests NATO do the same. If trump wants to draw down military from Europe, as CIC, he can do it right now, he just doesn’t want to.
Not the “election meddling again”. Trump won, with the undemocratic rules of the game. Get over it, and concentrate on trying to do something useful, like avoiding war, not inciting it.
The concept of a federal army is not a bad one. It is the policy of mission, and expenditure to match the mission. The US military exists so that Oregon and Louisiana don’t have to each build a navy. Nato could function as a reasonable entity if it’s aggressive policies and bloated spending were halted. This should be trump’s push, not increased Euro spending.
I disagree. Trump’s push should be to get out of NATO, period. As long as the US is a part of it, not only will the US be it’s main financial support, no matter how much the Europeans spend, it will also be a meddlesome neoconservative outfit directed primarily at Russia , but also will continue to serve as a useful fig leaf for aggressive war policies, such as the destruction of Libya and the attempted destruction of Syria. If the Europeans want an alliance to protect against Russia, they can do it themselves. They are technologically competent, and are quite wealthy.
Powerful nations that are fully capable of defending themselves from external attack, such as the US, Russia, and China, should not be involved in military alliances. They don’t need them. Medium sized and small nations have a reasonable need to band together for mutual self-defense, should they so wish. No other peacetime International arrangement seems reasonable to me. All else leads to mischief.
I understand, but, it is quite a bit more of a sticky wicket. Nato is the vehicle for the nuclear umbrella. Without it, will Germany develop nukes ? Poland, Spain, Turkey ? As it is, no Nato country is required by the treaty to intervene anywhere. So, if Poland is invaded, the US only joins in if it pleases. The US only gets involved because it can’t stand the thought of a war going on somewhere without it sticking it’s …whatever, into it. So again, policy, and deployment. A few fun Nato facts….the first Nato engagement was in Korea, the other side of the world from Europe. The Soviet Union offered to join Nato in 1948 (?) and was rejected, this led to the Warsaw pact. France left Nato for 30yrs. It remains, trump could pull troops out of Nato positions and accomplish what you want, lower taxes, be out of target zones etc. He has not drawn down US militarism anywhere, and in fact has expanded presence most everywhere.
Britain and France have nukes, including ICBMs. French nukes are completely under the control of French personnel. Nukes don’t need an American-held “umbrella.” French and British nukes, or even just French nukes, are more than sufficient to defend even against Russia, because even if Russia can totally destroy France, it will be a pyrrhic victory, with unacceptable losses of whole cities in European Russia, and Russia knows this. If Britain and France remain in a de-Americanized NATO, they can put up a credible deterrent.
And, the other 27 countries ?
They can be part of a French &/or British led NATO, sans the US, if they like.
The most dangerous politician is a megalomaniac with lots of power.
Yup, Merkel is off her rails.
Germany has shirked their financial agreement with NATO repeatedly.
Germany’s trade surplus with the US
is the result of barriers against US products.
And now it’s revealed Germany concluded a Nat/Gas deal with Russia
for BILLIONS on a sweet heart deal that personally enriches Merkel
and renders Germany dependent on Russia for 70% of it’s energy—BUT
somehow, the US is still supposed to ignore all that and provide superpower defense for Germany and the rest of Europe?
Germany is FUNDING the Russian war machine we are supposedly sworn to fight???
Sorry Trump’s right.
Only 5 of the 29 NATO countries meet their financial commitment.
The US is just punked year over year by them, enough already.
Just cut them loose.
Why is Chancellor Merkel the focus of Trump’s ire with the EU and NATO? Because she has Made Germany Great Again. That is unforgivable hence Germany must be punished with tariffs.
My nephew who lives in Germany once said about Merkel: “she looks like a friendly mother but she is a pitbull politician.” That pitbull has been Germany’s Chancellor for a record 18 years.
On tariffs: apparently there will be no tariffs on the products made in China for Ivanka.
US globalists supporting globalist NATO… not a huge surprise.