NATO and trump

[John145]

Basically he said the majority of NATO members do not contribute the minimum requirement as per their agreement and he wants to reevaluate the USA's commitment based on the lack of commitment of the other members.

Why is this a problem?

[Murph7355]

It isn't. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

It would be nice if he said those who are contributing get a bigger/the only say until the others stump up. But who knows.

Maybe he'll suggest a re-evaluated budget with commensurate capabilities?

Either way, in raw terms, it's another of those things he's said that makes sense.

[Hilts]

John145 said:

Basically he said the majority of NATO members do not contribute the minimum requirement as per their agreement and he wants to reevaluate the USA's commitment based on the lack of commitment of the other members.

Why is this a problem?

He's a businessman and doesn't see the strategic military picture. Although I'm sure his advisors will do their best to educate him I feel he'll think he knows better.

Anyway this has been ongoing for years for all members to meet their target, only 4 or 5 NATO members met the 2% goal last year. This is just an empty threat, he won't be able to do anything other than bleat about it.

Most have pledged to do better and increase their spending.

More than 500 of the forces of those other countries who didn't meet the 2% were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and now he wants to re-evaluate the US's commitment to them?

Like his wall idea and his assertion that Mexico will pay for it this is another Trump non-starter.

[clarkey]

John145 said:

Basically he said the majority of NATO members do not contribute the minimum requirement as per their agreement and he wants to reevaluate the USA's commitment based on the lack of commitment of the other members.

Why is this a problem?

I read it as 'you expect us to make the investment in your security, I'm going to expect you to do the same'.

Nations not meeting their defence spend commitments shouldn't expect the same level of security, I'm glad he's made a point of it.

[anonymous-user]

John145 said:

Basically he said the majority of NATO members do not contribute the minimum requirement as per their agreement and he wants to reevaluate the USA's commitment based on the lack of commitment of the other members.

Why is this a problem?

Because defence isn't often a simple question of economics. if the US pulls out of NATO, there is a risk of increased military instability in Europe. Whether it comes to anything is a different question. If the US makes its forces available on a pay-per-use basis, a hostile force could pick off the poor nations.

It really boils down to whether you think the US undertaking the role of world's policeman is a good thing or not. The US had a decision to make in the run up to WW2 and the early years of WW2 which was whether to be isolationist, and protect its own borders and nothing more than that, or do more.

Thankfully it followed our example.

[b2hbm]

clarkey said:

John145 said:

Basically he said the majority of NATO members do not contribute the minimum requirement as per their agreement and he wants to reevaluate the USA's commitment based on the lack of commitment of the other members.

Why is this a problem?

I read it as 'you expect us to make the investment in your security, I'm going to expect you to do the same'.

Nations not meeting their defence spend commitments shouldn't expect the same level of security, I'm glad he's made a point of it.

That's my take on the situation as well. Although it's true that if the US let NATO fall apart there could be consequences affecting the USA down the line, so they end up taking the path where they're effectively bankrolling Europe on defence.

But it isn't fair, and he's right to call Europe out on the matter. I found this link on who pays what quite interesting;

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending...

It's a recent article so presumably current data. I was surprised to see that Greece spends more than we do on defence (as a % of GDP, and let's face it, theirs isn't great ) but the big players in the EU, France, Germany & Italy are all freeloading.

So yep, Trump is right to call it.

[FN2TypeR]

Does the UK meet the 2% requirement? I recall Cameron saying we do but I *think* I read that he had included the UK military pension scheme in the figure to make it look better than it is.

[anonymous-user]

FN2TypeR said:

Does the UK meet the 2% requirement? I recall Cameron saying we do but I *think* I read that he had included the UK military pension scheme in the figure to make it look better than it is.

That's right, the UK didn't meet the 2% requirement but changed what qualifies as defence spending such now includes military and MOD civilian pensions as part of the defence budget. Way to go Osborne. I think it was about 1.7% prior to that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/113...

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 13th November 07:49

[JagLover]

clarkey said:

John145 said:

Basically he said the majority of NATO members do not contribute the minimum requirement as per their agreement and he wants to reevaluate the USA's commitment based on the lack of commitment of the other members.

Why is this a problem?

I read it as 'you expect us to make the investment in your security, I'm going to expect you to do the same'.

Nations not meeting their defence spend commitments shouldn't expect the same level of security, I'm glad he's made a point of it.

On this he has a very reasonable point.

One of his slogans was "america first" but this isn't isolationism, he is merely expecting the countries sheltering under the American security umbrella to contribute more to the cost of their own defence.

[ian in lancs]

Regarding Greek expenditure - I recall that a condition of the EU loan was spending on German tanks; well done Germany! Not!

[98elise]

pablo said:

FN2TypeR said:

Does the UK meet the 2% requirement? I recall Cameron saying we do but I *think* I read that he had included the UK military pension scheme in the figure to make it look better than it is.

That's right, the UK didn't meet the 2% requirement but changed what qualifies as defence spending such now includes military and MOD civilian pensions as part of the defence budget. Way to go Osborne. I think it was about 1.7% prior to that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/113...

Edited by pablo on Sunday 13th November 07:49

Ignoring the 2% requirement for a minute, surely pensions should be included in defense spending. If you were looking at the cost of any governemnt organisation then the cost of pensions should be included.

Forces pensions are non contributory, but pay is low. IIRC you don't pay NI for your pension either. If it were a money purchase scheme then the cost would be on the MOD up front.

This is based on my service 25 years ago so things might have changed.

[Blue62]

The big worry is that Russia can simply walk into Eastern European countries if NATO is weakened, a situation that would not suit the US or Europe. The trend seems to be that Trump is backtracking on most of his election promises, I personally hope that this is another one.

[FN2TypeR]

98elise said:

pablo said:

FN2TypeR said:

Does the UK meet the 2% requirement? I recall Cameron saying we do but I *think* I read that he had included the UK military pension scheme in the figure to make it look better than it is.

That's right, the UK didn't meet the 2% requirement but changed what qualifies as defence spending such now includes military and MOD civilian pensions as part of the defence budget. Way to go Osborne. I think it was about 1.7% prior to that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/113...

Edited by pablo on Sunday 13th November 07:49

Ignoring the 2% requirement for a minute, surely pensions should be included in defense spending. If you were looking at the cost of any governemnt organisation then the cost of pensions should be included.

Forces pensions are non contributory, but pay is low. IIRC you don't pay NI for your pension either. If it were a money purchase scheme then the cost would be on the MOD up front.

This is based on my service 25 years ago so things might have changed.

I agree with you and I have no qualms with the pensions themselves but we're hardly projecting global power or fighting the bad guys with pension money are we?

Just another Cameron and Osborne fudge IMO.

[anonymous-user]

98elise said:

pablo said:

FN2TypeR said:

Does the UK meet the 2% requirement? I recall Cameron saying we do but I *think* I read that he had included the UK military pension scheme in the figure to make it look better than it is.

That's right, the UK didn't meet the 2% requirement but changed what qualifies as defence spending such now includes military and MOD civilian pensions as part of the defence budget. Way to go Osborne. I think it was about 1.7% prior to that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/113...

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 13th November 07:49

Ignoring the 2% requirement for a minute, surely pensions should be included in defense spending. If you were looking at the cost of any governemnt organisation then the cost of pensions should be included.

Forces pensions are non contributory, but pay is low. IIRC you don't pay NI for your pension either. If it were a money purchase scheme then the cost would be on the MOD up front.

This is based on my service 25 years ago so things might have changed.

IIRC the military pensions were taken from one budget and given to the MoD to meet the 2% agreement. I'd guess that many other civil service pensions are still in that original pot. Because defence had this target, the value of military pensions was transferred. As no other govt department has a similar agreement, it's probably easier for central government and the departments to have all remaining civil servant pensions in a single department, DWP?

I'm not sure how you can justify the pension of a retired serviceman can be considered as defence spending though, as it's not contributing to any defence capability..... which is what I understand the 2% to be about.

Not clued up on military pensions but I guess the fact that the cost of pensions will only ever increase thus meaning if we commit to spending just the minimum 2% of GDP on defence, if GDP doesn't rise at the same rate as the cost of the pensions, the actual amount available for equipment procurement and support reduces in real terms.

What's likely to happen following this decision is the pension deficit in the MOD increases and this impacts defence capability spending.

[Smollet]

Blue62 said:

The big worry is that Russia can simply walk into Eastern European countries if NATO is weakened, a situation that would not suit the US or Europe. The trend seems to be that Trump is backtracking on most of his election promises, I personally hope that this is another one.

The more he backtracks the more I think he was a Democrat mole. He's been a member of them in the past. I do think that Europe needs to grow a pair when it comes to defence spending though.

[Pesty]

pablo said:

98elise said:

pablo said:

FN2TypeR said:

Does the UK meet the 2% requirement? I recall Cameron saying we do but I *think* I read that he had included the UK military pension scheme in the figure to make it look better than it is.

That's right, the UK didn't meet the 2% requirement but changed what qualifies as defence spending such now includes military and MOD civilian pensions as part of the defence budget. Way to go Osborne. I think it was about 1.7% prior to that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/113...

Edited by pablo on Sunday 13th November 07:49

Ignoring the 2% requirement for a minute, surely pensions should be included in defense spending. If you were looking at the cost of any governemnt organisation then the cost of pensions should be included.

Forces pensions are non contributory, but pay is low. IIRC you don't pay NI for your pension either. If it were a money purchase scheme then the cost would be on the MOD up front.

This is based on my service 25 years ago so things might have changed.

IIRC the military pensions were taken from one budget and given to the MoD to meet the 2% agreement. I'd guess that many other civil service pensions are still in that original pot. Because defence had this target, the value of military pensions was transferred. As no other govt department has a similar agreement, it's probably easier for central government and the departments to have all remaining civil servant pensions in a single department, DWP?

I'm not sure how you can justify the pension of a retired serviceman can be considered as defence spending though, as it's not contributing to any defence capability..... which is what I understand the 2% to be about.

Not clued up on military pensions but I guess the fact that the cost of pensions will only ever increase thus meaning if we commit to spending just the minimum 2% of GDP on defence, if GDP doesn't rise at the same rate as the cost of the pensions, the actual amount available for equipment procurement and support reduces in real terms.

What's likely to happen following this decision is the pension deficit in the MOD increases and this impacts defence capability spending.

It's an obvious fiddle. I'm with America on this as should anybody who is able to look at the other sides point of view and look from their side . It's amazing how the left constantly moan about American military but now want them to protect us. AND pay.
It's also amazing how we are one of if not the only country to meet the foreign aid spend. Reduce that and put it in our armed forces.

[sidicks]

pablo said:

I'm not sure how you can justify the pension of a retired serviceman can be considered as defence spending though, as it's not contributing to any defence capability..... which is what I understand the 2% to be about.

Surely 'defence spending' includes the cost of employing military personnel. Part of the costs of those military personnel relates to wages and benefits, which clearly includes contributions towards their pensions. There can therefore be no doubt that pension contributions are directly related to military spending and hence should be included in the 2%.

[Pesty]

Defence spending maybe but what did the agreement say? 2%

[Countdown]

Why do we need NATO anymore?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/12/trump-p...

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

pablo said:

I'm not sure how you can justify the pension of a retired serviceman can be considered as defence spending though, as it's not contributing to any defence capability..... which is what I understand the 2% to be about.

Surely 'defence spending' includes the cost of employing military personnel. Part of the costs of those military personnel relates to wages and benefits, which clearly includes contributions towards their pensions. There can therefore be no doubt that pension contributions are directly related to military spending and hence should be included in the 2%.

Defence spending has to refer to anything that can support or be deployed on operations be it equipment or personnel. Those who have served and are now retired have my full respect but in terms of accounting, should not have their pension classed as defence spending unless all other govt departments follow suit.

Wages I agree with, pensions less so. Including wages in the 2% as we have always done, means you are paying for someone or something to be deployed in a conflict. Including pensions means you are including within the defence budget, a whole group of people who have contributed in the past but can no longer do so.

That's money that can not be spent on equipment or new or existing recruits without an increase in the overall defence budget. So if the defence budget goes up amid huge fanfare, is it to cover the cost of the pensions or will it be spent on capability?