NATO Funding & NATO's "Destiny"

""Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should," Trump told heads of NATO states assembled Thursday in Brussels. "Many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years."   It's not the first time Trump has suggested other NATO members have a debt to pay. 

But NATO does not keep a running tab of what its members spend on defense. Treaty members target spending 2% of economic output on defense -- but that is merely a guideline.  NATO members spend money on their own defense. The funds they send to NATO directly account for less than 1% of overall defense spending by members of the alliance. CNN.com

---------------

Less than 1% of the funds committed for overall defense by the member states are paid to NATO as an organization.  These are used for running headquarters, a communications spine, etc.  The other 99% are spent by the member states on their own defense.  Can it really be that DJT does not know that?  That seems impossible but ...

And then there is the grander question of NATO's purpose in the post-USSR world.  The alliance was founded for the purpose of holding Western Europe together in a bloc to resist Soviet hegemonism.  That was its only purpose.  Well, the Soviet Union no longer exists.  The Borg strives mightily every day to make people believe that today's Russia = the USSR but that is a mighty hard sell if the pitch is not made to people who know no history, geography, economics, and who cannot think for themselves.

Russia is nothing like the USSR.  There is no good reason for NATO to exist other than as a plaything for Borgist meddlers.  Let the Europeans defend themselves.  Is that not what the existence of the EU implies?  Are these countries not capable of managing their own affairs?  pl  

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-funding-explained-trump/index.html

Comments

[Laura]

Col. - I think he actually does not understand NATO or the EU. Either their purpose or how they actually work...hence, the "Germany is bad and I will renegotiate on their cars" diatribe. He thinks he can negotiate with separate EU countries on these trade issues. apparently, he also does not understand that German cars are made in the US by German companies...but that may be a briefing he has not yet attended.

[jsn]

This "initiative" on Trump's part is at strategic cross purposes with the Borg intent to deploy NATO in Syria: to what extent will our NATO allies sign up to fund and fight the war against Putin and the Ayatollahs?

[ked]

As military / defense alliances go, NATO has had a pretty good run. Maybe it's just good luck. I wonder, have there been scholarly comparative studies of defense alliances over the centuries? How long they last / do they achieve stated goals / did they expand beyond their initial purposes? NATO might even be a record-holder... longevity, peace w/ the Warsaw Pact, minimal internal flare-ups, low losses of member troops. I bet it might even be judged cost-effective (compared w/ the Korean, VN, & our ME Wars).

Shut it down? EU doesn't want that.
Do what Trump demands? Always a questionable course.
Exit by the USA? Sounds like the Admin would be ok w/ that. Shift attention to "kinetic behaviors" elsewhere.

After Donny's charm offensive this week, if I were the other NATO members, I might want to change the charter to evolve it into an EU-centric (ok, Canada too - they play well w/ others) defense, peace-keeping, intel & counter-terrorism org. Offer a nice thanks for the memories! to the US... & maybe observer status.

[Heros]

Nato is the Rothschild army. It will not be disbanded until it has been replaced by a new one. It hasn't changed since Maria Rothschild wrote:

“If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.”

[turcopolier]

Heros

Very funny. Real "Protocols" stuff. The creation of NATO had nothing to do with the Rothschilds. pl

[kao_hsien_chih]

To be fair, does anyone really "understand" the point of NATO or EU? The original purpose of NATO was indeed a defensive alliance against USSR. There is no military threat today, and now, it seems to be just some tool to do whatever its putative leaders want to do. Somewhat even murkier for EU. The original original purpose was to facilitate economic cooperation across borders along the Rhein. Since then, it became bigger and bigger for increasingly nebulous reasons that seem more related to prestige of the various leaders and facility of economic activities that disproportionately (and often only) benefit big international players of various kinds. The citizens, in all nations participating in these organizations, need and deserve some serious explanation of what exactly these things are doing for the regular folks.

[mauisurfer]

Bacevich:

To see just how brain dead the Blob has become, Building “Situations of Strength”—hereinafter referred to Building Situations, or simply BS—is an essential text.

As depicted in BS, problem number one takes priority over all the rest, as Russia and China seek to carve out spheres of influence and thereby challenge the “principle that all states get to decide their foreign relations free from military pressure or coercion.” The authors of Building Situations do not admit to the possibility that the United States presides over several spheres of influence. Nor do they reflect on whether and how the United States has relied on military pressure and coercion to police regions it seeks to dominate. Put simply, Russian and Chinese coercion is reprehensible. Coercion undertaken by the United States is leadership.

To sum up: The United States should stick to a game plan that shows no signs of producing success. Moreover, it should do so despite the fact that, as the BSers note, in “the United States is no longer dependent on Middle Eastern oil,” and despite their claim that present-day Arab leaders “all view Israel as a highly capable partner in the common cause of combatting terrorism, Islamist extremism, and Iranian hegemonic ambitions.” By extension, with Arab leaders no longer interested in promoting Palestinian statehood, “the old bromide of distancing the United States from Israel to curry favor with the Arabs is no longer relevant”—a conclusion that, in effect, greenlights the further expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-beltway-foreign-policy-blob-strikes-back/

[Kooshy]

I don't know if a sophisticated, nuclear armed military alliance with most modern equipment, Air Force etc. is necessary or even capable of fighting gorilla style war with terrorist. The past record in Afghanistan is not promising. They will waste money and lives for another 10,20 years till they get tired one by one and go home.

[Jack]

Sir

I've always agreed with Ron Paul's suggestion that we bring our soldiers home and close the military bases in Europe, Asia and South America. We can focus on defense of CONUS and Hawaii and other US territories and the shipping lanes for our trade with nations. As you have noted we don't know foreign cultures or history. Best we stay away from imperial games we are not adept at. If the Europeans and the Muslims and the Asians want to fight each other we should let them do it.

Unfortunately all the "serious" people who populate our political, media and governmental establishment love meddling in the internal affairs of others.

[jonst]

Europe is in a tough position. It can't defend itself. Period. It does not have anywhere near the raw materials it must have to survive. It has to ship/pipeline them in. And it can no longer defend the sealanes that bring in the supplies. With birthrate that is suicidal for the white race. And a propensity to brand anyone a criminal or racist, or both, who points that out.

AND they like to look down their noses at us barbarians in the US, while giving lectures to the us. Some well deserved. Nonetheless....it no longer goes over very big here in the States. And, to top that off, the zeitgeist of the Nation, of DC, has moved West, to a people oriented towards Asia. Not looking longley back to Europe like the WASP's of Henry James time. Or FDR's time. Ike's time. Those days are all over. This 'alliance' is surviving, for the moment, on inertia.

[William R. Cumming]

Agree with P.L.!

[AEL]

Great alliances have their own dynamics. If NATO continues to exist, I would not be surprised if, sooner that you think, a competing alliance between Russian and China springs into existence as a "counter-balance". Then both alliances will try to bring India onto their side and everyone gets to play all the familiar Great Power games.

[Linda]

It is the US that asks for NATO support in Afghanistan and now Syria because we want international cover and it saves us money and manpower.

[TV]

I knew a Dutchman, a cynic from the WWII generation, who said that NATO existed because the US preferred to fight the Soviets over there and not here (CONUS).

[Origin]

Ked and the Committee:

It always seemed to me that from the U.S. point of view, the primary benefit of NATO for the U.S. is to keep American military dominance and to deter the recreation of powerful European armies followed by the economic benefit of creating a subservient market for military goods.

Either Trump does not understand this, or he just rejects the idea.

From the perspective of the “others” in the relationship, it seems to me to be a time of great opportunity for our competitors to begin to supplant U.S. dominance, both in military influence, finance, and trade.

Recent news suggests that the TPP is not dead after the U.S. pullout and that the other partners are quite interested in avoiding the Chinese alternative. Likewise, NAFTA seem to be at deep risk. Climate change management is rejected by those in power in the U.S. Combining the Trump Administration’s departure from those arrangements that are deeply beneficial to many the participating countries creates unique opportunities simply to bypass the U.S. and to reduce its meddling in their affairs.

Imagine, if Mexico and Canada embarked on a program to harness their industrial capacity to act as a bridge between Asia, Europe, South America, and Africa as nearly duty-free manufacturing locations and, combined with their national partners in South America, Africa, and Europe to established a partnerships that intentionally disadvantaged the U.S. by a system of finance, tariffs, and rules bypassing the U.S. to keep the U.S. out of world markets as a bad actor.

[Heros]

Colonel,
I won't try to debate what the real agenda of those who formed Nato in 1949 was, although I will say that McCarthy was on the right track.

You said yourself that: "There is no good reason for NATO to exist other than as a plaything for Borgist meddlers". When I look at what Nato has accomplished since the defeat of the Soviet Union, what I see is mostly what was at that time in Rothschild interest. I cannot say if the Borg are more Rothschild or the Rothschild are more borg, but here is a very quick review of the Rothschild Army's accomplishments since 1991:
- Destruction of the USSR and the CIS
- Destruction of Afghanistan
- Destruction of Yugoslavia
- Destruction of Iraq
- Destruction of Libya
- Destruction of Syria
- Destruction of Ukraine
- Expansion into ex-Warsaw pact countries
- Continuous saber rattling and provocations against Russia
- Never ending fealty and R2P to Israel

Now it is true that not every member of Nato partakes in every Nato action. This roster changes depending on circumstances, but Nato members are all chained together by article 5 anyway. To me it seems clear that all these Nato countries have sworn fealty to the Rothschilds and their nuclear weapons and central banking based empire.

[turcopolier]

Origin

"a subservient market?" The British, French and Germans all make their own r]equipment and market it in competition with ours. Now, the Turks are building tanks. pl

[turcopolier]

james

Yes. IMO NATO has been nothing but a tool of the Borg since the fall of the USSR. pl

[Origin]

Col.

That is exactly the point: EU, Canada, and Mexico are not subservient. They do not really need the U.S.

They might well do better excluding the U.S, and building their own developing dominance by bridging to the Americas and over Asia's New Silk Road, leaving the increasingly dysfunctional U.S. out of their equation and trade routes. Intentionally disadvantaging the U.S. would strengthen their positions.

Mexico has a particular opportunity if it embraces the wall and its dividing line to reduce its relations with the U.S. and to expand its vision to Africa, Asia, and Europe to unfetter it from U.S. restraint and domination. Like the U.S., Mexico has good harbors on both coasts and it is a physical barrier between the parts of the Americas south of it and the U.S.

The Trumpists simply cannot perceive that the U.S. can alienate its best customers so much that they expand their markets. elsewhere away from the craziness. Were I a Mexican manufacturing entrepreneur, I would be leveraging my TPP contacts in S.E. Asia to market to Africa where growth is exploding and I would get my financing from the EU.

[mauisurfer]

Col:
Mattis has become a very powerful figure in Trump administration.
Do you have an insight to share about Mattis and Iran?
I have read that his hatred/distrust of Iran is based on his belief that Iran supplied ied's to Iraqis who fought USA.
But that seems like small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.
Paul Pillar writes:
Donald Trump probably does not want a new war, and during the presidential campaign he said things that suggested to some ears that he would be less likely than his opponent to get into one. But there are people who would welcome war with Iran and will seize on events to try to spark one. And there are people who evidently have the president’s ear—Secretary Mattis, for one—who favor the sort of confrontational approach toward Iran that increases the chance of events spinning out of control.

[Lee A. Arnold]

I am a little surprised that so much is being made of it. The money is a drop in the ocean. NATO has no say on U.S. overtures to Russia. I mean who really cares? It's a little like people blaming Trump's problems on the Democrats & the media, when the Republicans have control of both houses of Congress too, and they still can't get anything done.

Now some knucklehead from Montana clocks a reporter for asking about the loony healthcare repeal. HEALTHCARE. This new Congressman also thinks the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. And recently told a crowd on the topic of Social Security, "There's nothing in the Bible that talks about retirement. And yet it's been an accepted concept in our culture today. Nowhere does it say, 'Well, he was a good and faithful servant, so he went to the beach...' The example I think of is Noah. How old was Noah when he built the ark? 600. He wasn't like, cashing Social Security checks, he wasn't hanging out, he was working. So, I think we have an obligation to work. The role we have in work may change over time, but the concept of retirement is not biblical."

He's a disgrace, he'll fit right in.

[Jack]

Your simplistic conspiracy theory of the Rothschild banking business, not much different than the petrodollar conspiracy theory, will not hold much water at SST, where the host and the correspondents are far more sophisticated.

There are plenty of sites where such conspiracy minded ilk congregate. You'll find a more receptive audience there.

[turcopolier]

mauisurfer

IMO Mattis is a small minded and rigid man. pl

[turcopolier]

Origin

Good! Let the EU and the rest make their own way and we can withdraw out forces from overseas. pl

[mauisurfer]

I cannot speak for industrialists of Mexico.
But the avocado farmers of Michoacan would be dismayed by your analysis.