Who in NATO is meeting their 2% commitment?

[Renauda]

Because, according to Jolly, Trump bore down on TS.

[taiwan_girl]

@Renauda said in Who in NATO is meeting their 2% commitment?:

Wasn’t there talk sometime last year to put through a bill in Congress that would prevent any president from unilaterally pulling out without the consent of both houses?

Even if he didn't pull out of NATO, he could still do a lot to really hurt the US involvement.

[Jolly]

@Renauda said in Who in NATO is meeting their 2% commitment?:

Because, according to Jolly, Trump bore down on TS.

He did. You're welcome to go read what he wrote, but it's pretty much the same thing.

This is nothing new. Trump bitched about NATO member contributions the entire time he was in office. He didn't pull out of NATO, but he sure did some arm-twisting.

Putin has actually been more effective than Trump or Biden in getting NATO members to pony up. Sadly, it's the countries closest to the Russian (exception UK) border that are committing the necessary funds.

[Renauda]

This is nothing new

Seems to me every US President since Reagan with the possible exception of Clinton and possibly G H W Bush, has raised the issue. True though more than anyone Putin has forced some governments to put some more money into defence budgets, but there is also recognition (even in Canada) that obsolete systems need to be replaced with new technology. That alone requires large expenditures especially if aircraft and ships are involved and need considerable operational upgrades or outright replacement.

Trump’s rants and crass threats are more for the benefit of his US support base than for the notice of NATO membership. Of course those of us on the outside find his words unacceptable and over the top. But the bluster revs up his base by presenting a scenario that America’s good will and global largess is being ruthlessly and continuously exploited by a world full of foreign shirkers claiming to be friends and allies.

So for the most part Trump recent episode of dramatic outbursting is best ignored. If he become POTUS again, the rest of us will just have manage the chaos he creates as we did the first time around.

[Renauda]

@taiwan_girl said in Who in NATO is meeting their 2% commitment?:

@Renauda said in Who in NATO is meeting their 2% commitment?:

Wasn’t there talk sometime last year to put through a bill in Congress that would prevent any president from unilaterally pulling out without the consent of both houses?

Even if he didn't pull out of NATO, he could still do a lot to really hurt the US involvement.

Found it. Yes there is legislation now in place requiring Congressional consent to withdraw from NATO.

https://thehill.com/homenews/4360407-congress-approves-bill-barring-president-withdrawing-nato/amp/

[Mik]

A good first step to managing chaos.

[Renauda]

@Mik

Indeed, and no matter the outcome, the world will be assured that capital C chaos will seek to rule.

[taiwan_girl]

@Renauda said in Who in NATO is meeting their 2% commitment?:

Found it. Yes there is legislation now in place requiring Congressional consent to withdraw from NATO.

Yes, but

Rather than attempting to withdraw from NATO, a second Trump presidency could allow his allies to pursue a policy of making NATO “dormant,” an idea pushed by at least one Trump-allied think tank.

Nobody knows exactly what that would look like, Volker said, but the president has immense power over how the US interacts with its allies.

“There’s lots of things that you can do administratively as the commander in chief that would still be very disruptive for NATO,” Volker said.

A president could reduce the number of exercises Americans take part in with NATO allies, further reduce troop presence in Europe, withhold payments to the NATO infrastructure or cut down on the US military budget.

The US would still be bound, under this type of scenario, by the pledge to defend other NATO nations, but it would not be prepared.

“It’s not just enough to say, yes, we will fight together,” said Volker. “You actually have to have the capabilities.”

[Jolly]

Thank you for the CNN article.

[taiwan_girl]

@Jolly said in Who in NATO is meeting their 2% commitment?:

Thank you for the CNN article.

The purpose of my posting of the article was to show that the congress passing the bill could have minimal effect if a US president really wanted to hurt NATO without actually leaving the organization.

[Jolly]

The article is pure conjecture, full of smoke, mirrors and bullshit, floating on a sea of what-ifs?

[taiwan_girl]

While it was an opinion piece, considering that the writer was

Kurt Volker, the U.S. special envoy to Ukraine during the Trump administration.

he does have some credibility. It is not just some random left or right side internet person.

[Renauda]

@Jolly said in Who in NATO is meeting their 2% commitment?:

The article is pure conjecture, full of smoke, mirrors and bullshit, floating on a sea of what-ifs?

Probably just conjecture floating in a sea of what-ifs.

As TG has accurately stated, all the article points out is that people should be mindful that the legislation is limited to ensuring that Congressional assent is required for the US to leave NATO. It does not prevent the POTUS from incrementally detaching the US from involvement in various areas and aspects of the alliance. Given Trump’s stated position regarding NATO, a second term for Trump could witness the US distancing itself from ongoing NATO initiatives.

Whether you call it conjecture or what-ifs it’s still scenario building. That is a part of what people, like Volker, who are in the business of diplomacy and foreign policy, do.