Trump Slams Allies in favor of Putin (again)...

[*michaelsean*]

(07-10-2018, 09:52 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Ohhhh i forgot we are living the god damn twilightzone.

What year was Crimea invaded? What year did Russia have a massive effort to interfere in our election. When was Russia jamming our war machines and helping Syria counter us. When were we made aware of Russias efforts to undermine us in Afghanistan. When was it Russia bragged about undetectable nukes?

Obama handling the russian threat with kid gloves was probably his biggest blunder. Now a more bold russia has an American president on his knees giddy with joy and his mouth wide open.

So Romney being able to see beyond the present is a bad thing? Hey at least Obama got some yuks.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-10-2018, 01:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: Europe should spend more on defense and I agree with Trump in that sense. That being said, it's not like the US defense budget is so high because Germany doesn't pay their fair share. Europe wouldn't need the US miliary budget at the heights it is now, on the other hand I can't quite believe the US would spend any less if Germany were to pay more on defense.

Thank you, first off.  it's nice to be able to have an actual back and forth.  While you have a point I would counter that if Germany was at even minimal readiness levels the US could reduce troop levels in that region, saving millions, if not billions of dollars.  As of now the German military is in a pathetic state of readiness.

https://www.dw.com/en/only-4-of-germanys-128-eurofighter-jets-combat-ready-report/a-43611873

This is hardly the only source, google is replete with other examples.

Quote:OK. If he's so stuck in his ways that he can't overcome this though, it also makes him incompetent for the job he's holding (leader of the free, non-autocratic world).

No, it makes him limited.  Obama had major weaknesses in the other direction.  Putin knew Obama was severely risk averse.  This enabled him to annex territory for the first time sine WW2.  Obama did absolutely **** all about this and Putin knew he would.  Obama was good with the "free world" and weak as hell with the autocrats.  Time will tell on Trump.

Quote:Also, this explanation alone, while I see some merit, is not the sole reason for all this weird Putin love and his subverting US alliances. I agree with your stance on NK, with Russia I have difficulties.

Understandable.  I lived in Europe from 84-86, so I know the level of fear and apprehension caused by Russia.  I can understand a difference of opinion, but Russia has much more cause for conflict with China than the west.  If we can make them see that then we will all benefit.  All of us but China that is.

Quote:Putin invades other countries and tries to undermine all democracies very much including the American one, and Trump is not willing to call him out on that. As allies targeted similarly, who wouldn't be stunned by that.

I wish I could remember the source, but a US foreign policy expert stated that Putin had played a weak hand masterfully.  He will use any means to tweek his perceived opponents.  So, make him realize we are not his natural opponents.  He'd hardly be the most odious regime the west has had to deal with.  He's certainly less of a long term threat than China.  

[GMDino]

(07-10-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it makes him limited.  Obama had major weaknesses in the other direction.  Putin knew Obama was severely risk averse.  This enabled him to annex territory for the first time sine WW2.  Obama did absolutely **** all about this and Putin knew he would.  Obama was good with the "free world" and weak as hell with the autocrats.  Time will tell on Trump.


Understandable.  I lived in Europe from 84-86, so I know the level of fear and apprehension caused by Russia.  I can understand a difference of opinion, but Russia has much more cause for conflict with China than the west.  If we can make them see that then we will all benefit.  All of us but China that is.


I wish I could remember the source, but a US foreign policy expert stated that Putin had played a weak hand masterfully.  He will use any means to tweek his perceived opponents.  So, make him realize we are not his natural opponents.  He'd hardly be the most odious regime the west has had to deal with.  He's certainly less of a long term threat than China.  

You can accuse Obama of being "weak" but he did do ****.  A lot of people (mostly on the right) thought he should have done more...but a lot of them wanted a nice new cold war to bump up defense spending too I assume.

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/02/trump-obama-russia-crimea/516777/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/26/obama-no-cold-war-crimea
https://www.npr.org/2014/03/24/293754227/has-obama-done-enough-in-response-to-russias-takeover-of-crimea

In fact Obama did put sanctions on Russia without the reservations of the current POTUS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEYNAEuLgXM


All that revisionist history aside if Obama was "weak" what the heck is Trump with his "limited" (your word) style?  He's going to be easily outsmarted by anyone let alone Putin and Trump lives off flattery.  A couple nice words and he'll come back and say that Russia had nothing to do with election interference, we should remove all sanctions and let them back in the G8 and that "the annexed land is really doing wonderful, really great....many people say."  

To defend Trump's follies by implying the smarter guy who did do something (although an argument about whether it was enough has happened) was "weak" is silly.  

Personally I call being "risk averse" being thoughtful and trying to find the best way to handle things without just jumping in (probably via twitter) without any consultation.

That is part of why some are concerned that Trump is meeting Putin with no note takers before their other meeting.  The story yesterday is that they fear he will make promises ("the best deals") like he did with Kim before he can consult with anyone.  He thinks he owns the company instead or knowing he's just running it for us.  

[GMDino]

Meanwhile...in Europe.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/11/trump-nato-germany-totally-controlled-and-captive-russia-defense-spending/774308002/

Quote:Trump blasts US ally Germany as 'captive to Russia' in tense opening of NATO summit


BRUSSELS – President Donald Trump unleashed his most remarkable broadside yet against a European ally on Wednesday, accusing Germany of being "totally controlled by Russia" and of not meeting its obligations to the NATO alliance.
"Germany, as far I’m concerned, is captive to Russia," Trump said.


Trump's extraordinary rhetoric signaled that he would continue his get-tough attitude toward the United States' closest allies  – even as he himself prepares to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin next week in an effort to improve U.S.-Russian relations.


The source of Trump's ire: German support for a pipeline that would bring Russian natural gas through the Baltic Sea to central Europe, all while Germany spends just 1.24 percent toward the collective defense of NATO allies. 


"So we're supposed to protect Germany, but they're getting their energy from Russia.  Explain that.  And it can't be explained," he said.  


The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a commercial venture, but the German government has given its approval to the project. 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, speaking to reporters later, did not mention Trump by name but suggested that she would not be lectured about Russian control of Germany, having grown up in the Soviet-dominated East Germany.


“I have experienced myself how a part of Germany was controlled by the Soviet Union," she said.


Merkel also emphasized the German role in fighting alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan and its commitment to the collective defense.


More: As he arrives at NATO summit, President Trump hounds allies over 'delinquent' defense spending


Trump's verbal attack on Germany came in his first official event in Brussels Wednesday, setting a combative tone for the two-day summit of the alliance in Brussels. The harsh rhetoric suggested that Trump had no intention of patching up relationships bruised by a contentious Group of Seven summit in Canada last month.

Indeed, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Trump would repeat his complaint to Merkel when the two meet face-to-face later Wednesday. That meeting will be behind closed doors.


Trump has linked defense and trade issues throughout his presidency, using national security powers to impose tariffs against close allies like Canada and trade deficits as an argument for cutting U.S. defense aid to Europe.


His criticism of German ties to Russia comes five days before he'll meet one-on-one with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki for their first stand-alone summit since Trump became president.


Trump arrived in Belgium Tuesday night, beginning a seven-day European tour that will also include visits to England and Scotland.


At NATO, Trump pressed his recurring complaint that European allies aren't paying enough toward the common defense of the alliance. A new NATO analysis released Tuesday shows only five of the 29 allies – the United States, the United Kingdom, Greece, Estonia and Latvia – currently meet the benchmark of 2 percent of economic output spent non defense.


"Just look at the chart," Trump said. "Many countries are not paying what they should.  And, frankly, many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back, where they're delinquent, as far as I'm concerned, because the United 
States has had to pay for them."


That complaint is a misrepresentation of the 2014 agreement reached at a summit in Wales. While each country agreed to strive for the 2 percent mark within 10 years, that spending is supposed to be on their own defense and is not paid to the United States or NATO directly. There was no provision made for making up deficiencies in past years.


Trump's comments came in a breakfast meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who later noted that overall defense spending by the alliance has increased since Trump started to make it an issue.ign Me Up


"He has a clear message, I think, that has increased interest and understanding of defense spending, and what we’ve seen is that defense spending has started to increase," Stoltenberg said. "So that's what I have to say about that."

So the "business man" who has hundreds of lawsuits against him due to his shady practices and lack of payment is stomping his feet over NATO without even a basic understanding of how the agreement works?
He is indeed "limited" in his abilities.

[jj22]

The difference between how Trump is with our Allies vs how he will be with a dictator (Putin), will be on display once again, and we will once again have to hear the excuses from Trump supporters defending the love fest between Trump and those who want to see America blown off the map.

[hollodero]

(07-10-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you, first off.  it's nice to be able to have an actual back and forth.  While you have a point I would counter that if Germany was at even minimal readiness levels the US could reduce troop levels in that region, saving millions, if not billions of dollars.  As of now the German military is in a pathetic state of readiness.

https://www.dw.com/en/only-4-of-germanys-128-eurofighter-jets-combat-ready-report/a-43611873
This is hardly the only source, google is replete with other examples.

lol, the Eurofighter. Ours often don't fly at all. They were quite expensive though... ok, aside from that flying disasters I sure believe things could be better in German military, especially funding-wise. No argument there. The US troops, however, aren't really there to compensate or to actually protect Germany, I believe. They're there for prevailing US interests. I don't really see troop levels reduced in either case, and if they actually are then it has nothing to do with German defense spending.
The second thing I would mention is that Germany spending on defense makes other countries nervous, and quite often it seemed one of the purposes of NATO to avoid just that. Their restraint to arm up was often very much desired and welcomed from others.

(07-10-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it makes him limited.  Obama had major weaknesses in the other direction.  Putin knew Obama was severely risk averse.  This enabled him to annex territory for the first time sine WW2.  Obama did absolutely **** all about this and Putin knew he would.  Obama was good with the "free world" and weak as hell with the autocrats.  Time will tell on Trump.

Annexing the Crimea had multiple reasons and happened after a chain of events, it's not just on Obama. Being risk-averse isn't the worst trait in my opinion, for what would have been the alternative. War with Russia? No one would have wanted that. Maybe his threatening levels weren't quite as plausible, and there sure were mistakes made (I really wasn't a fan of Obama regarding his foreign policies, so it's not like I want to defend a hero of mine here). Overall though, I prefer Obama's approach which sure was welcome after the Cowboys led the country right into an awful war. His approach was far from perfect, but not comparable to Trump. Is the way I see it.

Obama implied quite severe sanctions and took a harder line against Putin, that sure was the end of that, but again I'm not sure what else could have been done aside from that. Trump, on the other hand, never even mentions Crimea and buddies up to Putin. I know what I'd prefer, and I can't see any equality between Trump and Obama's faults here.

In other words, if Obama had cozied up the way Trump did... folks would have called it appeasement. It would be different folk than those accusing Trump of that right now, me being very much amongst them. "More acquainted to their style"... I can't see that as excuse for what Trump is doing here with Putin. If Trump can't adapt his ways and his assessments to the necessities of his new job, he's in the worst job possible for him. Obama's faults are a distant runner-up to this behaviour mistake-wise.
(I sure think there's a completely different reason for Trump's behaviour, but ok.)

(07-10-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Understandable.  I lived in Europe from 84-86, so I know the level of fear and apprehension caused by Russia.  I can understand a difference of opinion, but Russia has much more cause for conflict with China than the west.  If we can make them see that then we will all benefit.  All of us but China that is.

I have to mention though that the '84 Russia was a whole lot of different than the current Russia, and so were the fears of the people. Back then we pretty much feared nuclear annihilation. These days we fear subversion of our democracies. And rightfully so. European countries are constantly under Russian-led cyber attacks, and they aren't uneffective or unimportant fringe phenomena at all.

Brexit for example ws Russian funded, now sure the movement doesn't originate in Russia, but as close as that one went one could make the argument Russian efforts tipped that one. Other movements have roots in Russia as well, and same goes for #Calexit or #Walkaway of #releasethememo and thousands of meme wars and alternative reality placements, e.g propaganda campaigns, led in the most effective way these days. That do often work.

(07-10-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wish I could remember the source, but a US foreign policy expert stated that Putin had played a weak hand masterfully.  He will use any means to tweek his perceived opponents.  So, make him realize we are not his natural opponents.  He'd hardly be the most odious regime the west has had to deal with.  He's certainly less of a long term threat than China.  

I don't get where you're going here at all. First off, we can't make Putin realize anything. I can't see Trump (or anyone really) walking in the Kreml and making some decent points Putin has to think about.
Secondly, right now Russia is one of the most odious regimes, only beat by NK and IS and folks like those. The Russians are the ones invading other countries and attacking us (Europe and US), and I don't see the word "attack" as hyperbole. In these times, I don't see the point in shifting the focus to another potential long-time threat and just let Putin be Putin. That would be his dream, wouldn't it.
And I never would believe he'd focus on China instead of Europe. That's just not how Russia or Putin ticks historically and actually, and as long as China doesn't attack them that won't change. Also, think about how Putin reigns (oligarchy and money) and what he needs for that. He finds that in the west.
And playing a weak hand masterfully very much includes low financial effort-high output manoeuvers like troll farms, misinformation campaigns and hacking. But I sure feel you don't take that aspect as seriously as I am.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-11-2018, 09:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: You can accuse Obama of being "weak" but he did do ****.  A lot of people (mostly on the right) thought he should have done more...but a lot of them wanted a nice new cold war to bump up defense spending too I assume.

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/02/trump-obama-russia-crimea/516777/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/26/obama-no-cold-war-crimea
https://www.npr.org/2014/03/24/293754227/has-obama-done-enough-in-response-to-russias-takeover-of-crimea

In fact Obama did put sanctions on Russia without the reservations of the current POTUS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEYNAEuLgXM

Yes, he did put sanctions in place.  Do you think Putin didn't know that would be the extent of it and didn't care at all?  So, for some temporary sanctions, that won't affect him personally at all, he annexed a huge chunk of territory from another country.  A very valuable strategic piece of territory.  I'm sure those sanctions really put the squeeze on him.

Quote:All that revisionist history aside if Obama was "weak" what the heck is Trump with his "limited" (your word) style?  He's going to be easily outsmarted by anyone let alone Putin and Trump lives off flattery.  A couple nice words and he'll come back and say that Russia had nothing to do with election interference, we should remove all sanctions and let them back in the G8 and that "the annexed land is really doing wonderful, really great....many people say."  

Obama was weak on foreign policy, as I said (in a post that wasn't directed at you).  He was great with allies and dismissed by foes.

Quote:To defend Trump's follies by implying the smarter guy who did do something (although an argument about whether it was enough has happened) was "weak" is silly.  

This is part of your problem.  You see a logical argument about why or how something happens as a "defense".  It's an explanation.  This must be why you divide the world into Trump opponents and Trump supporters. 

Quote:Personally I call being "risk averse" being thoughtful and trying to find the best way to handle things without just jumping in (probably via twitter) without any consultation.

After he got the consultation what did he do?  Oh yes, sanctions.  They were very effective as Russia has returned the Crimea to Ukraine.

Quote:That is part of why some are concerned that Trump is meeting Putin with no note takers before their other meeting.  The story yesterday is that they fear he will make promises ("the best deals") like he did with Kim before he can consult with anyone.  He thinks he owns the company instead or knowing he's just running it for us.  

What if he does?  He doesn't have the power to unilaterally carry them out if they are of any real significance.  Face facts, Putin played Obama, got everything he wanted and lost nothing.  Russia can't be sanctioned in any meaningful way as Europe is severely dependent on Russia for energy.  Putin knows all of this.  Maybe Trump can do better, maybe not.  None of that changes that Obama's policy towards Russia was an abject failure in every way possible.  But "reset button'!

[GMDino]

(07-11-2018, 11:28 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, he did put sanctions in place.  Do you think Putin didn't know that would be the extent of it and didn't care at all?  So, for some temporary sanctions, that won't affect him personally at all, he annexed a huge chunk of territory from another country.  A very valuable strategic piece of territory.  I'm sure those sanctions really put the squeeze on him.

As I said, many of the complaints were that we didn't do "more".  What "more" is no one wants to say other than sanctions were not "enough".  I suppose they want a war?  when the folks who talk about start signing up I'll support that option.

(07-11-2018, 11:28 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Obama was weak on foreign policy, as I said (in a post that wasn't directed at you).  He was great with allies and dismissed by foes.

Yeah...remember when the right went on and on about the "Obama apology tour"?  That was good times.  Not that Trump bending over every time Putin is mentioned is the same though.  

All seriousness aside Obama did not have a great track record with foreign affairs.  He also wasn't as "limited" as Trump is so the prospects of his "tough talk" doing anything is just folly.

(07-11-2018, 11:28 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is part of your problem.  You see a logical argument about why or how something happens as a "defense".  It's an explanation.  This must be why you divide the world into Trump opponents and Trump supporters. 

Except it is just a "defense" when it is compared to Obama.  There is nothing given about Trump's own policies or results that is used to defend him.  Just that Obama was bad too.  I offered example as support of my contention that Obama was harder on Russia than Trump and why it wasn't seen as enough by some.

Trump supporters say: He does things his way...which is better than Obama.  That's it.

(07-11-2018, 11:28 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: After he got the consultation what did he do?  Oh yes, sanctions.  They were very effective as Russia has returned the Crimea to Ukraine.

Again, give us an alternative.  

Some might call diplomacy "weak".  Some think an unthinking "man" who makes deals out of thin air is "strong".  When I see results we can compare them.

(07-11-2018, 11:28 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What if he does?  He doesn't have the power to unilaterally carry them out if they are of any real significance.  Face facts, Putin played Obama, got everything he wanted and lost nothing.  Russia can't be sanctioned in any meaningful way as Europe is severely dependent on Russia for energy.  Putin knows all of this.  Maybe Trump can do better, maybe not.  None of that changes that Obama's policy towards Russia was an abject failure in every way possible.  But "reset button'!

Fact is at least something was done without the POTUS siding with Russia over our allies.

Fact is Trump is "limited" in is abilities and his defenders simply toss that aside because Obama didn't do "enough".  That's just an excuse.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-11-2018, 11:03 AM)hollodero Wrote: lol, the Eurofighter. Ours often don't fly at all. They were quite expensive though... ok, aside from that flying disasters I sure believe things could be better in German military, especially funding-wise. No argument there. The US troops, however, aren't really there to compensate or to actually protect Germany, I believe. They're there for prevailing US interests. I don't really see troop levels reduced in either case, and if they actually are then it has nothing to do with German defense spending.
The second thing I would mention is that Germany spending on defense makes other countries nervous, and quite often it seemed one of the purposes of NATO to avoid just that. Their restraint to arm up was often very much desired and welcomed from others.

Except US troops have been drawn down in the past and are only recently being ramped up.  Your point about not being there to protect Germany, but US interests, is odd.  Protecting Germany is in the US interest.  How are troops there protecting US interests in a way other than defending weaker allied nations?  Also, while I get historically based fear of an armed Germany I think it's far less rational to fear Germany than Russia.

Quote:Annexing the Crimea had multiple reasons and happened after a chain of events, it's not just on Obama. Being risk-averse isn't the worst trait in my opinion, for what would have been the alternative. War with Russia? No one would have wanted that. Maybe his threatening levels weren't quite as plausible, and there sure were mistakes made (I really wasn't a fan of Obama regarding his foreign policies, so it's not like I want to defend a hero of mine here). Overall though, I prefer Obama's approach which sure was welcome after the Cowboys led the country right into an awful war. His approach was far from perfect, but not comparable to Trump. Is the way I see it.

Annexing the Crimea occurred because Putin knew he could do it and the west, the US included, wouldn't do anything meaningful about it.  There are interventions in between sanctions and a deceleration of war, but Putin knew none of those would be used due to a risk averse Obama and an militarily impotent Europe.  I completely agree about Bush, the second Iraq war was the absolutely worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the US.  Russia invading the Crimea is far more akin to Iraq invading Kuwait.

Quote:Obama implied quite severe sanctions and took a harder line against Putin, that sure was the end of that, but again I'm not sure what else could have been done aside from that. Trump, on the other hand, never even mentions Crimea and buddies up to Putin. I know what I'd prefer, and I can't see any equality between Trump and Obama's faults here.

Trump was presented with a fait accompli on Crimea.  Ascribing any blame to him on the subject is disingenuous.  The question is, how do we proceed from here?  Let things simmer as is or try and change them in a meaningful way?

Quote:In other words, if Obama had cozied up the way Trump did... folks would have called it appeasement. It would be different folk than those accusing Trump of that right now, me being very much amongst them. "More acquainted to their style"... I can't see that as excuse for what Trump is doing here with Putin. If Trump can't adapt his ways and his assessments to the necessities of his new job, he's in the worst job possible for him. Obama's faults are a distant runner-up to this behaviour mistake-wise.
(I sure think there's a completely different reason for Trump's behaviour, but ok.)

The extreme difference being that Putin stole the Crimea on Obama's watch.  Again, the question is how do we proceed from here?

Quote:I have to mention though that the '84 Russia was a whole lot of different than the current Russia, and so were the fears of the people. Back then we pretty much feared nuclear annihilation. These days we fear subversion of our democracies. And rightfully so. European countries are constantly under Russian-led cyber attacks, and they aren't uneffective or unimportant fringe phenomena at all.

I completely agree, it appears the sanctions have had no meaningful effect on Russia's conduct.

Quote:Brexit for example ws Russian funded, now sure the movement doesn't originate in Russia, but as close as that one went one could make the argument Russian efforts tipped that one. Other movements have roots in Russia as well, and same goes for #Calexit or #Walkaway of #releasethememo and thousands of meme wars and alternative reality placements, e.g propaganda campaigns, led in the most effective way these days. That do often work.

I am aware of all of this.  Russia is playing a very subtle and effective game here.  All of this returns to my main quesiton though, how do we proceed from here?

Quote:I don't get where you're going here at all. First off, we can't make Putin realize anything. I can't see Trump (or anyone really) walking in the Kreml and making some decent points Putin has to think about.
Secondly, right now Russia is one of the most odious regimes, only beat by NK and IS and folks like those. The Russians are the ones invading other countries and attacking us (Europe and US), and I don't see the word "attack" as hyperbole. In these times, I don't see the point in shifting the focus to another potential long-time threat and just let Putin be Putin. That would be his dream, wouldn't it.
And I never would believe he'd focus on China instead of Europe. That's just not how Russia or Putin ticks historically and actually, and as long as China doesn't attack them that won't change. Also, think about how Putin reigns (oligarchy and money) and what he needs for that. He finds that in the west.
And playing a weak hand masterfully very much includes low financial effort-high output manoeuvers like troll farms, misinformation campaigns and hacking. But I sure feel you don't take that aspect as seriously as I am.

What I'm getting at is who is the long term threat and how do we proceed.  Russia is not driven by ideology, they are driven by national furor, a desire to be relevant and Putin's greed.  The are the obvious threat, but not even remotely the biggest one.  China is driven by ideology and national furor.  There is no peeling them away from anyone because they are the polar opposite.  It is possible to pull Russia back into the western orbit.  They have far more cause for animus towards China then they do towards the West, that they don't express it now is due to many factors.  The bottom line is this, do we accept Russia as a Chinese vassal state and all that implies or do we try and change that?  Your argument seems to be we can't change it so why try.  

[*michaelsean*]

Isn't the Annexation of Crimea a football play?

[fredtoast]

We have more troops stationed in Japan (almost 40,000) than any other country, and Japan only spends 1% of their GDP on defense.

So why isn't anyone crying for them to spend more?

I doubt that the US spends 2% of GDP on defense in NATO countries

[Nebuchadnezzar]

2% isn't going to NATO, the 2% is the amount to spend on your own military to protect yourself and to keep NATO strong.

The Untied States feels that by other countries not spending 2%, we have to fill that gap.

In other words, why should Germany or France or any country in NATO spend 2% of the GDP on their military when the US will bail us out?

Having a strong NATO is in the best interest of NATO. Have a strong US and every other country in NATO weak make NATO and the US weak.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-11-2018, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We have more troops stationed in Japan (almost 40,000) than any other country, and Japan only spends 1% of their GDP on defense.

So why isn't anyone crying for them to spend more?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it has to do with Japan not being a part of NATO.

[hollodero]

(07-11-2018, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except US troops have been drawn down in the past and are only recently being ramped up.  Your point about not being there to protect Germany, but US interests, is odd.  Protecting Germany is in the US interest.  How are troops there protecting US interests in a way other than defending weaker allied nations?  Also, while I get historically based fear of an armed Germany I think it's far less rational to fear Germany than Russia.

Well of course it's not rational. I merely meant to say that there is resistance to an armed Germany, and it's still a significant resistance, though of course not compared to the former century. But still. Wanting them to spend more on military is a shift, and it takes time to adapt to that shift. The 2% suggestion isn't decade-long old, it stems from 2014... now if Germany had used a lot of money immediately to buy lots of tanks and rockets and stuff, imagine the reaction. Take Lucie's reaction by half... still a pretty strong reaction.

Still, I am in favor of the 2% and yeah it's about time Europe took their defense in their own hands. Regarding US troops and defense. I don't think it's their main reason of existence. The US has bases everywhere in the world, often in countries that don't need protection from foes. These bases are just that, bases. For starting operations, places to retreat, places to organize operations from, a troop reserve etc. etc. Defending Germany is something I don't see among the top reasons. If it were about that, troops wouldn't be what's needed (rather anti-aircraft and such things).

(07-11-2018, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Annexing the Crimea occurred because Putin knew he could do it and the west, the US included, wouldn't do anything meaningful about it.

I don't refute that, but that's far from the only reason. Another one being that a former boxer believed it would be wise to revolt against a vastly corrupt, but democraticly legitimized government. Without having any plan beyond that, leading to turmoil, chaos and actual Nazis running homeland security (or something like that) and lots of other things. The opportunity created for Putin was far from being Obama's sole fault.
Europeans encouraging the boxer and his accoplices has a lot to do with it also. They all failed, Obama sure not excluded.

(07-11-2018, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There are interventions in between sanctions and a deceleration of war

Like what?

(07-11-2018, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Russia invading the Crimea is far more akin to Iraq invading Kuwait.

Far more akin, yes, but hardly the same thing. Saddam was a decade-long US ally looking for the promised reward for leading a war. Putin is no such thing.

(07-11-2018, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump was presented with a fait accompli on Crimea.  Ascribing any blame to him on the subject is disingenuous.

Yes it is, and I don't blame him for the annexion, of course not. I do blame him for obviously taking the position that this is done and no longer worthy of consideration or any kind of backlash. As if Putin just sat that one out. I disagree with that position.

(07-11-2018, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The question is, how do we proceed from here?  Let things simmer as is or try and change them in a meaningful way?

I don't know. If it were up to me, I'd probably take a hard look at banning the oligarchs from doing business in the west. Also I'd think about a global initiative against the cyber threats. Thiungs the TRump adminstratin doesn't even consider (also Germany and others, it's not solely Trump's fault)
What I'm most certainly against is trying to be cozy with Putin. That's the wrong way to treat him, and I'm not really willing to change my mind on this. I also think it's wrong to let Crimea be Crimea just because that wasn't Trump's fault, and I'm also against ignoring the Russian propaganda attacks, like Trump seems to be willing to do. Is that unfair to say? He states he believes what Putin says, after all.

(07-11-2018, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What I'm getting at is who is the long term threat and how do we proceed.  Russia is not driven by ideology, they are driven by national furor, a desire to be relevant and Putin's greed.  The are the obvious threat, but not even remotely the biggest one.  China is driven by ideology and national furor.  There is no peeling them away from anyone because they are the polar opposite.  It is possible to pull Russia back into the western orbit.  They have far more cause for animus towards China then they do towards the West, that they don't express it now is due to many factors.  The bottom line is this, do we accept Russia as a Chinese vassal state and all that implies or do we try and change that?  Your argument seems to be we can't change it so why try.  

I have a slightly different take on that. I don't see Russia as a Chinese vassal state, and I think the Chinese are too smart to treat them as such. If any, the Chinese are now in business with Russia due to the western sanctions, and they are closer now. And what could one do against that? Lifting the sanctions and letting Pution do whatever he pleases just so he likes us better than China is not the way to go. Not in my book, anyway.
(If Obama had suggested that course of action, you'd have quite a lot of things to say about that, and so would I.)

Do you have an answer to your question (how to proceed)? Would tht really be to lift the sanctions and try a softer approach? I couldn't quite figure out your exact position here.

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 01:06 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: 2% isn't going to NATO, the 2% is the amount to spend on your own military to protect yourself and to keep NATO strong.

The Untied States feels that by other countries not spending 2%, we have to fill that gap.

In other words, why should Germany or France or any country in NATO spend 2% of the GDP on their military when the US will bail us out?

Having a strong NATO is in the best interest of NATO. Have a strong US and every other country in NATO weak make NATO and the US weak.

But we probably don't spend 2% of our GDP on defense in NATO countries.

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 01:10 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it has to do with Japan not being a part of NATO.

That is my point exactly.

Why should we defend other countries that don't spend 2% of their GDP on defense, but cry when NATO countries don't do it?

If it is in our best interest to defend all of these countries where we have troops and bases then we should treat them all the same.

[GMDino]

Just checking back in to see if there are any new ideas on how to do it "better" than Obama did...


Didn't think so.


No answers...just excuses.

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We have more troops stationed in Japan (almost 40,000) than any other country, and Japan only spends 1% of their GDP on defense.

So why isn't anyone crying for them to spend more?

I doubt that the US spends 2% of GDP on defense in NATO countries

I'm just spit-balling here, but it could be that Japan is not part of NATO; therefore, they are not subject to the 2% pledge

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 03:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm just spit-balling here, but it could be that Japan is not part of NATO; therefore, they are not subject to the 2% pledge

(07-11-2018, 01:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is my point exactly.

Why should we defend other countries that don't spend 2% of their GDP on defense, but cry when NATO countries don't do it?

If it is in our best interest to defend all of these countries where we have troops and bases then we should treat them all the same.

[*bfine32*]

FredToast Wrote:I quoted an earlier reply that didn't address the 2% pledge of NATO

If you cannot see that the difference is because Japan didn't enter into a pledge with us; then no difference in the world could be presented to dispute your "point".