If all these countries have agreed to 2%, and if some fail to meet that obligation, should not they be kicked out of NATO, rather than the U.S. withdrawing?
Or maybe kicked out of the EU? Oh, wait a sec, Germany has been UNDER contributing to NATO for the last 30 years and only now has reached 2%?
Besides, what’s the point of NATO being armed to the hilt if European politicians can’t agree among themselves on what orders, if any, should be given to NATO.
Same old story, of the pointless of taxpayers giving government money to waste or mis-spend.
Robbie K
11 days ago
Even Lammy couldn’t get that one wrong.
D M
11 days ago
David Lammy in (blindingly obvious) sensible comment shock! He’s changed…..either that or he really fancies the cabinet minister salary upgrade….
Samuel Ross
10 days ago
2% is the MINIMUM. Optimally, it should be 3% or more.
A D Kent
10 days ago
NATO in it’s current state cannot ensure a better defended Europe. It’s doctrines are out of date and it’s munitions are fragile and massively expensive. It’s now almost completely a money laundering exercise designed to funnel cash from the populations to the MIC corporations where some is splashed back into and around the donor classes. If we don’t leave it, we need to drastically reform it, but just like the EU it’s almost certainly irreformable. This is why I’d prefer leaving and focusing on developing a proper industrial base – doing so will almost certainly be cheaper and safer in the long-term.
For just one aspect of NATOs many short comings, check out the Project for Government Oversight’s many reports on the ‘flagship’ F-35 programme, the basket into which NATO continues to put all it’s eggs. NATO’s war-fighting doctrines rely massively on air-supremacy, but it wants to do so with an aircraft that’s simply not up to the task.
And what other aircraft would you suggest they use? F-22s would be nice, but our genius ex-president Obama eliminated the F-22 program leaving only about 20-30 of them currently operational.
That’s the rub isn’t it. In my ideal world it would be X-Wings which are about as iikely as getting the F-35s in shape for a proper war with the Chinese or Russians. This is why I tend to favour pulling our necks in and not poking them quite as much as we do.
I should read yours before I typed mine this morning. That said, we both end up with the same conclusion which, dare I suggest, is that democracy and its ugly sister, vote-seeking political ambition, is getting in the way of government decision-making.
If all these countries have agreed to 2%, and if some fail to meet that obligation, should not they be kicked out of NATO, rather than the U.S. withdrawing?
Or maybe kicked out of the EU? Oh, wait a sec, Germany has been UNDER contributing to NATO for the last 30 years and only now has reached 2%?
Besides, what’s the point of NATO being armed to the hilt if European politicians can’t agree among themselves on what orders, if any, should be given to NATO.
Same old story, of the pointless of taxpayers giving government money to waste or mis-spend.
Even Lammy couldn’t get that one wrong.
David Lammy in (blindingly obvious) sensible comment shock! He’s changed…..either that or he really fancies the cabinet minister salary upgrade….
2% is the MINIMUM. Optimally, it should be 3% or more.
NATO in it’s current state cannot ensure a better defended Europe. It’s doctrines are out of date and it’s munitions are fragile and massively expensive. It’s now almost completely a money laundering exercise designed to funnel cash from the populations to the MIC corporations where some is splashed back into and around the donor classes. If we don’t leave it, we need to drastically reform it, but just like the EU it’s almost certainly irreformable. This is why I’d prefer leaving and focusing on developing a proper industrial base – doing so will almost certainly be cheaper and safer in the long-term.
For just one aspect of NATOs many short comings, check out the Project for Government Oversight’s many reports on the ‘flagship’ F-35 programme, the basket into which NATO continues to put all it’s eggs. NATO’s war-fighting doctrines rely massively on air-supremacy, but it wants to do so with an aircraft that’s simply not up to the task.
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/f-35-the-part-time-fighter-jet
For more on NATOs general uselessness see Operation Prosperity Guardian.
And what other aircraft would you suggest they use? F-22s would be nice, but our genius ex-president Obama eliminated the F-22 program leaving only about 20-30 of them currently operational.
That’s the rub isn’t it. In my ideal world it would be X-Wings which are about as iikely as getting the F-35s in shape for a proper war with the Chinese or Russians. This is why I tend to favour pulling our necks in and not poking them quite as much as we do.
I should read yours before I typed mine this morning. That said, we both end up with the same conclusion which, dare I suggest, is that democracy and its ugly sister, vote-seeking political ambition, is getting in the way of government decision-making.