NATO goes all-in on Ukraine, Canada gets a slap on the wrist (Page 1/2)
blackrams JUL 12, 09:05 AM
NATO goes all-in on Ukraine, Canada gets a slap on the wrist.
www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...7u?ocid=msedgntp&pc=

quote

At the NATO meeting in Washington this week, President Joe Biden announced a new air defense commitment for Ukraine that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is also in town, has long wanted. Ukraine’s defense against Russia is a central topic on the occasion of the alliance’s 75th anniversary as Putin steps up the Russian war effort.

Despite its own military aid and commitments to Ukraine, which run into the billions, Canada has been getting plenty of attention for its lack of spending. US officials criticize PM Justin Trudeau’s government for failing to meet NATO’s defense-spending target of 2% of GDP – it hit just the 1.38% GDP mark last year.

On X, Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan posted, “Our NATO allies must do more to meet these dangerous times, particularly our friends in Canada who continue to freeload off this alliance and have yet to even present a real plan to meet the two percent of GDP minimum defense spending commitment all NATO countries agreed to meet.”
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who met with Trudeau this week, also called out Canada, posting that “it’s time for our northern ally to invest seriously in the hard power required to help preserve prosperity and security across NATO.”

Awkward … but maybe effective. On Wednesday, Canada announced plans to procure up to a dozen new submarines and, earlier today, Trudeau announced a plan to raise defense spending to hit NATO’s 2% target by 2032. He also said Ottawa would “continue to explore opportunities that will further increase defense spending, and advance Canada’s strategic interest.

”

Confusing to me on why it took an embarrassing situation like this to get the Canadian government to live up to their word and agreed to commitment but, as I understand it, there are several NATO members who have done the same thing. DJT did much to get those other nations to stand up and move forward on their NATO commitment. I guess as long as another rich country is willing to pick up the slack then I guess signing on and paying up isn't all that big a deal in some countries.

Rams
williegoat JUL 12, 10:28 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

Confusing to me on why it took an embarrassing situation like this to get the Canadian government to live up to their word and agreed to commitment but, as I understand it, there are several NATO members who have done the same thing. DJT did much to get those other nations to stand up and move forward on their NATO commitment. I guess as long as another rich country is willing to pick up the slack then I guess signing on and paying up isn't all that big a deal in some countries.

Rams


I agree with every point here.

Can you imaging Biden (or Kamala, or Hillary, or Michele, or Gavin Nuisance, or Pitiful Pete Buttigeig) explaining to NATO "how it's gonna be" the way Trump did in 2017?
82-T/A [At Work] JUL 12, 12:01 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
Confusing to me on why it took an embarrassing situation like this to get the Canadian government to live up to their word and agreed to commitment but, as I understand it, there are several NATO members who have done the same thing. DJT did much to get those other nations to stand up and move forward on their NATO commitment. I guess as long as another rich country is willing to pick up the slack then I guess signing on and paying up isn't all that big a deal in some countries.

Rams




I don't know a whole lot about Canada's current military situation, but I was working with them over a decade ago, and unfortunately, they really consolidated a lot of their military... to the point that they entirely shut down almost half of their military institution. In large part, I think it was because they view spending money on military as taking away money for social programs. Which isn't wrong per-se, but it's easy for them to do since we're spending so much money. No one would attack Canada knowing that the United States would be there to save the day. They are capable intellectually, but they've gutted most of their military programs without any long-term plans. They even shut down all of their military academies except for one or two... RMC is like the only one left, and it's pretty small, to be honest. There's no longer a dedicated military school for their army, their air force, or anything else. Everyone goes to the same school and wears whatever uniform for the service they plan to go into eventually.

Honestly, it's just about priorities. I mean, can you blame them? The United States has basically told the world we'll solve all your problems and give you free money. Canada is smart... why should they even bother lifting a finger when the United States is willing to spend itself into bankruptcy. It's literally a win/win for Canada to do literally nothing.
blackrams JUL 12, 12:01 PM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

I agree with every point here.

Can you imaging Biden (or Kamala, or Hillary, or Michele, or Gavin Nuisance, or Pitiful Pete Buttigeig) explaining to NATO "how it's gonna be" the way Trump did in 2017?





Rams
NewDustin JUL 12, 12:54 PM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

Can you imaging Biden (or Kamala, or Hillary, or Michele, or Gavin Nuisance, or Pitiful Pete Buttigeig) explaining to NATO "how it's gonna be" the way Trump did in 2017?



There's a reasonable argument to be made that Trump's approach damaged NATO and weakened the U.S. in doing so. NATO itself is of the opinion that Trump considerably weakened both the alliance and world peace. The increased spending Trump was able to secure wasn't free, as the US picks up the majority of the tab for destabilized international peace. There's a good reason more skillful/experienced leaders did not approach the problem that way. This feels like a Bastiat moment.
82-T/A [At Work] JUL 12, 01:33 PM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:

There's a reasonable argument to be made that Trump's approach damaged NATO and weakened the U.S. in doing so. NATO itself is of the opinion that Trump considerably weakened both the alliance and world peace. The increased spending Trump was able to secure wasn't free, as the US picks up the majority of the tab for destabilized international peace. There's a good reason more skillful/experienced leaders did not approach the problem that way. This feels like a Bastiat moment.




I'm not following your logic here.

The United States carries the largest financial burden in NATO... which makes sense to some degree because we effectively created. But Trump got the NATO partners to properly (and actually) fund their respective obligations... which up to that point they'd been seriously negligent on. I've been to several NATO facilities, and they're largely a dump because they don't spend their money responsibly. The U.S. in my opinion takes far too much financial responsibility here.

I really don't understand what you mean by the increased spending wasn't free. No one suggested it was... the increased funding came from the partner nations, who ... as a responsible member of NATO, are required to budget their country's finances to properly fund their obligations.

I also don't understand at all what you're talking about in terms of weakening the alliance and world peace. This may be the narrative that Democrats are pushing, but it's literally the exact opposite. There were more peace agreements and trade agreements passed during Trump's time, even in his last few months, than with Biden. It's been a complete **** -show with Biden. If I'm being fair, I don't think Biden has any idea what's going on, nor is he even thinking about it, and the people who are running the show, I don't think are even thinking about global relationships... they are an afterthought. No one likes to be TOLD what to do... and Trump did that, but there was peace, and everyone played nice. There's been an absolute breakdown globally in Africa, the middle East, Eastern Europe, the South China Sea, and South-East Asia. Like... I don't even understand how you can even begin to say this? There was almost no new global conflict under Trump. Specifically 2022 to 2023 saw more new conflicts around the world than at any time in the last few administrations. Now... the U.S. isn't responsible for what other countries do... but countries will relent if they fear a potential reprisal by the United States and the allies. It's basically a free-for-all right now under Biden.

As a matter of fact, I think the only reason why China hasn't invaded Taiwan right now is because they fear it'll actually help Trump get elected... which they most certainly do not want. Otherwise... now is probably the best time for them to do it, because Biden won't do anything... especially as we get closer to the election. And the question is obvious to everyone... does he even know what the hell is going on?
olejoedad JUL 12, 01:36 PM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:


There's a reasonable argument to be made that Trump's approach damaged NATO and weakened the U.S. in doing so. NATO itself is of the opinion that Trump considerably weakened both the alliance and world peace. The increased spending Trump was able to secure wasn't free, as the US picks up the majority of the tab for destabilized international peace. There's a good reason more skillful/experienced leaders did not approach the problem that way. This feels like a Bastiat moment.



I've not heard the 'reasonable' argument you mention.

What is damaging to an alliance is the member nations not fulfilling their initial responsibilities as they had promised.
blackrams JUL 12, 01:59 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

What is damaging to an alliance is the member nations not fulfilling their initial responsibilities as they had promised.



From my point of view, what DJT did was to get the freeloaders back to the table and that strengthened the organization. If paragraph Article 5 was brought into play, more nations would be able to respond. This is what Russian President Biden fears and that's why he's threatened the nuclear option if NATO gets involved (sends troops) in the fight with Ukraine.

Correct me if I'm wrong but before Putin sent his troops across the Ukraine border, Biden said something about there would be no invasion, but an incursion wasn't a big deal.
I guess that was just another time he didn't exercise his well-known judgement (or maybe he did). I believe it was DJT who deserves the credit for the current embarrassing situation Canada is in, what happened during DJT's tenure caused others to pay up and now all members are looking to ensure other members are pulling their weight.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 07-16-2024).]

NewDustin JUL 12, 03:06 PM
There was some overlap on questions so I'm kind of bundling responses here. Lmk if I miss something.


quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

I really don't understand what you mean by the increased spending wasn't free. No one suggested it was... the increased funding came from the partner nations, who ... as a responsible member of NATO, are required to budget their country's finances to properly fund their obligations.



I meant it wasn't free to the US. Even if the other nations cover their share -which I agree wholeheartedly that they should do, btw- the US is going to fund the vast majority of NATO's defense. If we increase ally contributions at the cost of the the stability the treaty provides (which even threats do), we need to make sure the increased funding isn't less than what our individual spend would be on the increased instability. If that calculation is off then everybody pays more to maintain a comparable level of security, including us. It might be emotionally satisfying to hold some freeloaders accountable, but US policy isn't necessarily best served by doing what's emotionally satisfying.


quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

I also don't understand at all what you're talking about in terms of weakening the alliance and world peace.

Originally posted by olejoedad:
I've not heard the 'reasonable' argument you mention.



From the NATO Secretary General's response to a question about Trump weakening the alliance:
"NATO has been able to prevent a military attack against any NATO Ally for 75 years. And we have done that, because it has been absolutely clearly communicated from all NATO Allies at any time, that we are there to protect our Allies. And the whole idea of NATO is that an attack on one Ally will trigger the response from the whole Alliance.

And as long as we stand behind that message, together, we prevent any military attack on any Ally. So the purpose of NATO is to prevent war, is to preserve peace, is to prevent the attack on NATO Allies, and we have done so successfully for decades. Because our deterrence is credible. So any suggestion that we are not standing up for each other, that we are not going to protect each other, that does undermine the security of all of us, increasing the risks. And therefore it is so important that we both in action, but also in words, communicate clearly that we stand by NATO's commitment to protect and defend all Allies."


quote
“…with Biden…Biden…under Biden…because Biden…Biden said…”


There is a lot of criticism of Biden's response, a lot of which I agree with. In the context of my comment, however, this is just whataboutism. Thinking that Trump handled the situation poorly does not mean I think Biden is doing great.
82-T/A [At Work] JUL 12, 04:08 PM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
I meant it wasn't free to the US. Even if the other nations cover their share -which I agree wholeheartedly that they should do, btw- the US is going to fund the vast majority of NATO's defense. If we increase ally contributions at the cost of the the stability the treaty provides (which even threats do), we need to make sure the increased funding isn't less than what our individual spend would be on the increased instability. If that calculation is off then everybody pays more to maintain a comparable level of security, including us. It might be emotionally satisfying to hold some freeloaders accountable, but US policy isn't necessarily best served by doing what's emotionally satisfying.



If I get the gist of what you're saying, you are saying that Trump "weakened" the stability of the NATO treaty because he asked for the partner members to spend more?

If that's what you're saying, I couldn't disagree more with this. It's in my opinion, really, really stretching reality. The NATO alliance has been quite strong, and I think only a handful of countries have even talked about it, with only a couple actually leaving... like France, and they eventually came back. Every single time it was because of radical-left / Communist influence (likely pressured by Russia to begin with).

For that matter, the NATO members get back more from NATO than they give. Primarily, it serves as a cash-cow for them of US cash. We pay for almost all of the bases that NATO use, we pay for everything from the crypto they use for communications to shoes they often wear. It's like, ridiculous. And we staff hundreds of thousands of troops at NATO bases around the world, and staff NATO people are our bases around the world (on our dime).

Not trying to be mean, but you're regurgitating propaganda.



quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:

From the NATO Secretary General's response to a question about Trump weakening the alliance:
"NATO has been able to prevent a military attack against any NATO Ally for 75 years. And we have done that, because it has been absolutely clearly communicated from all NATO Allies at any time, that we are there to protect our Allies. And the whole idea of NATO is that an attack on one Ally will trigger the response from the whole Alliance.

And as long as we stand behind that message, together, we prevent any military attack on any Ally. So the purpose of NATO is to prevent war, is to preserve peace, is to prevent the attack on NATO Allies, and we have done so successfully for decades. Because our deterrence is credible. So any suggestion that we are not standing up for each other, that we are not going to protect each other, that does undermine the security of all of us, increasing the risks. And therefore it is so important that we both in action, but also in words, communicate clearly that we stand by NATO's commitment to protect and defend all Allies."




So... this interview... the reporter kept wanting to talk about Trump, and the General absolutely refused to trash-talk Trump.

The FACTS are that Trump was able to get these countries to increase spending due to pressure from Trump. The fact that spending has increased under Biden (which this article mentions) is because his feckless leadership gave way to Putin believing he could invade Ukraine... and, well... he was correct. I'm not really sure what the intent was in quoting those specific lines... because it's not like this is some solidarity pledge they recently came up with. The "Attack on one is an attack on all" is literally codified in Article 5 of the NATO charter. This is how Bush Jr. was able to get the coalition partners to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.