Report: Trump wants Germany, Japan and others to pay full cost plus a premium for US troops

The Purge

Platinum Member
Aug 16, 2018
17,881
7,856
400
And why not? We have been the primary source of European and Asia military defenses since WW II and have gotten LITTLE from that EXERCISR....NOW it is about time we actually make some money out of our supplying men and equipment for these 70+ years.....Let's see who is dumb enough to disagree!

STARS AND STRIPES (Mideast edition) ^ | March 9, 2019, p. 6 | John Vandiver

STUTTGART, Germany — President Donald Trump is pushing a plan that demands allies pick up the full cost of hosting U.S. troops in their countries, plus a 50 percent premium for the privilege of American protection, according to a news report.

Called “Cost Plus 50,” the plan would cost five or six times more for countries like Germany, Japan and South Korea, Bloomberg news reported Friday.

Trump has been championing the idea for months, Bloomberg reported, citing about a dozen unnamed administration officials. Trump even tested the idea during recent negotiations over a cost sharing agreement with South Korea, which was on the brink of collapse before a deal was finally reached in February.

“We want cost plus 50,” Trump demanded at one point during the talks, as quoted by the media organization.

While the U.S. eventually backed off the demand, the idea hasn’t gone away and could be used to pressure allies to increase their own defense budgets. For two years, Trump has railed against allies, especially in Europe, who Trump has described as security free riders unwilling to pay for their own defense.

[photo caption] A C-17 Globemaster III takes off from Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany. President Trump is pushing a plan that would demand allies like Germany and Japan pick up the full cost of hosting U.S. troops in their countries, plus a 50 percent premium for American protection, according to a news report. [photo credit: MICHAEL ABRAMS/STARS AND STRIPES]

It isn’t clear how close the Cost Plus 50 idea is to becoming official U.S. policy. Bloomberg reported that Trump’s advisers have pushed back against the idea. But the president’s interest in the proposal has nonetheless sent “shock waves through the departments of Defense and State,” it reported.

The plan would likely face fierce resistance from U.S. allies, especially Germany, which hosts about 32,000 American troops. Unlike South Korea, which relies on a large military presence as a line of protection against the north, the American forces in Germany don’t serve as territorial guardians.

While there were some 300,000 troops in Europe during the Cold War, there are about 70,000 in total on the Continent today. The contingent in Germany consists mostly of enabling forces and headquarters. The Army has just one infantry brigade in the country.

While allies like Japan see the U.S. military presence as a bulwark to an expansionist China, Germany generally doesn’t see an immediate threat to its own security. As such, Berlin is likely to balk at demands to pay all the costs for U.S. bases, which are widely viewed domestically as serving Washington’s foreign policy interests. For example, Ramstein Air Base — the largest in Germany — has been used as a vital staging post for the U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Libya, which Berlin either opposed or did not participate in.

And Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, the largest overseas military hospital in the world, is a stopping point for troops injured in Afghanistan and other missions abroad. It offers no direct benefit to Germany’s security. Similarly, Marines crisis response forces in Spain and Italy are tasked with protecting U.S. interests and diplomatic compounds in Africa on short notice rather than Europe’s territorial defense. It’s unclear whether Italy or Spain would feel obliged to pony up more for their presence.

Still, with a more assertive Russia, allies in Europe have been eager for more U.S. forces, especially along NATO’s eastern flank, which could give the Trump administration leverage. Poland has offered $2 billion to establish a permanent U.S. base in its country.

Germany spends about $1 billion or roughly 20 percent of the cost of hosting U.S. troops at various installations in the country, according to Rand Corporation data. But Germany’s payments for U.S. troops are almost entirely in kind — the provision of services or facilities.

Bloomberg reported the White House was also considering a measure to ease the financial burden — a discount for countries whose policies were in line with Washington’s.

That could be problematic for Germany, which has resisted demands from Trump to ramp up defense expenditures. By 2024, all NATO allies are expected to dedicate 2 percent of GDP to military matters. While the majority of alliance members are on track to reach the spending target, Berlin has balked at the idea and is expected to fall well short of the benchmark.


Yes, their freedom was not free, American blood was spilled for it. It is about time they pay for it.
 
I thought they were protecting America.

I thought they were protecting Europe from Russia, a country that failed to repair its one aircraft carrier and in reality stands no chance against western Europe.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if their socialist systems can still function if they have to start paying for their own defense?
 
I wonder if their socialist systems can still function if they have to start paying for their own defense?

Who would invade western Europe anyway? Putin? He'd lose, badly, and he knows it.

Removing the US presence would even the odds somewhat don't you think?

If Russian forces extended into western Europe with intentions of invasion every country in the EU would declare war. Russia's military is pretty outdated. I guess they could drop nukes and then immediately get fucked in the ass by the rest of the world. Think about it from Russia's perspective though. There's no way they're that stupid.

Oh, and we could always come back if they actually did do something that unbelievably stupid, which they wouldn't. There's just nothing good in it for Russia. It's not a fight they would gain from. Quite the opposite I think.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if their socialist systems can still function if they have to start paying for their own defense?

Who would invade western Europe anyway? Putin? He'd lose, badly, and he knows it.

Removing the US presence would even the odds somewhat don't you think?

If Russian forces extended into western Europe with intentions of invasion every country in the EU would declare war. Russia has nothing to gain from that. Also Russia's military is pretty outdated. I guess he could drop nukes and then get fucked in the ass by the rest of the world. Think about it from Russia's perspective though. There's no way they're that stupid.

Oh, and we could always come back if he actually did something that unbelievably stupid, which he wouldn't. There's just nothing good in it for Russia.

So basically, it's not so much about defending Europe but keeping Russia off balance so Putin can't MRGA?
 
So basically, it's not so much about defending Europe but keeping Russia off balance so Putin can't MRGA?

I think it's about our government wanting to have its dick rolled out across the entire planet. Also it inflates the defense budget A LOT, and some very powerful people profit big time from that.
 
And why not? We have been the primary source of European and Asia military defenses since WW II and have gotten LITTLE from that EXERCISR....NOW it is about time we actually make some money out of our supplying men and equipment for these 70+ years.....Let's see who is dumb enough to disagree!

STARS AND STRIPES (Mideast edition) ^ | March 9, 2019, p. 6 | John Vandiver

STUTTGART, Germany — President Donald Trump is pushing a plan that demands allies pick up the full cost of hosting U.S. troops in their countries, plus a 50 percent premium for the privilege of American protection, according to a news report.

Called “Cost Plus 50,” the plan would cost five or six times more for countries like Germany, Japan and South Korea, Bloomberg news reported Friday.

Trump has been championing the idea for months, Bloomberg reported, citing about a dozen unnamed administration officials. Trump even tested the idea during recent negotiations over a cost sharing agreement with South Korea, which was on the brink of collapse before a deal was finally reached in February.

“We want cost plus 50,” Trump demanded at one point during the talks, as quoted by the media organization.

While the U.S. eventually backed off the demand, the idea hasn’t gone away and could be used to pressure allies to increase their own defense budgets. For two years, Trump has railed against allies, especially in Europe, who Trump has described as security free riders unwilling to pay for their own defense.

[photo caption] A C-17 Globemaster III takes off from Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany. President Trump is pushing a plan that would demand allies like Germany and Japan pick up the full cost of hosting U.S. troops in their countries, plus a 50 percent premium for American protection, according to a news report. [photo credit: MICHAEL ABRAMS/STARS AND STRIPES]

It isn’t clear how close the Cost Plus 50 idea is to becoming official U.S. policy. Bloomberg reported that Trump’s advisers have pushed back against the idea. But the president’s interest in the proposal has nonetheless sent “shock waves through the departments of Defense and State,” it reported.

The plan would likely face fierce resistance from U.S. allies, especially Germany, which hosts about 32,000 American troops. Unlike South Korea, which relies on a large military presence as a line of protection against the north, the American forces in Germany don’t serve as territorial guardians.

While there were some 300,000 troops in Europe during the Cold War, there are about 70,000 in total on the Continent today. The contingent in Germany consists mostly of enabling forces and headquarters. The Army has just one infantry brigade in the country.

While allies like Japan see the U.S. military presence as a bulwark to an expansionist China, Germany generally doesn’t see an immediate threat to its own security. As such, Berlin is likely to balk at demands to pay all the costs for U.S. bases, which are widely viewed domestically as serving Washington’s foreign policy interests. For example, Ramstein Air Base — the largest in Germany — has been used as a vital staging post for the U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Libya, which Berlin either opposed or did not participate in.

And Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, the largest overseas military hospital in the world, is a stopping point for troops injured in Afghanistan and other missions abroad. It offers no direct benefit to Germany’s security. Similarly, Marines crisis response forces in Spain and Italy are tasked with protecting U.S. interests and diplomatic compounds in Africa on short notice rather than Europe’s territorial defense. It’s unclear whether Italy or Spain would feel obliged to pony up more for their presence.

Still, with a more assertive Russia, allies in Europe have been eager for more U.S. forces, especially along NATO’s eastern flank, which could give the Trump administration leverage. Poland has offered $2 billion to establish a permanent U.S. base in its country.

Germany spends about $1 billion or roughly 20 percent of the cost of hosting U.S. troops at various installations in the country, according to Rand Corporation data. But Germany’s payments for U.S. troops are almost entirely in kind — the provision of services or facilities.

Bloomberg reported the White House was also considering a measure to ease the financial burden — a discount for countries whose policies were in line with Washington’s.

That could be problematic for Germany, which has resisted demands from Trump to ramp up defense expenditures. By 2024, all NATO allies are expected to dedicate 2 percent of GDP to military matters. While the majority of alliance members are on track to reach the spending target, Berlin has balked at the idea and is expected to fall well short of the benchmark.


Yes, their freedom was not free, American blood was spilled for it. It is about time they pay for it.

I think we're happy to have them where we think we need them.

Then again, if you're weak on preventing the expansion of the Soviet sphere of influence....
 
So basically, it's not so much about defending Europe but keeping Russia off balance so Putin can't MRGA?

I think it's about our government wanting to have its dick rolled out across the entire planet. Also it inflates the defense budget A LOT, and some very powerful people profit big time from that.

You're probably right. Are we all just pawns to these obscenely wealthy entities? it's a bit depressing but also sort of liberating to know that my vote really doesn't count for anything.
 
my vote really doesn't count for anything.

It does if we keep electing people that won't be controlled. Why do you think Donald Trump is hated by status quo elites on both sides? It's because he's not a scripted partisan pawn. What I wish I could make you righties understand is that there are people on the left that won't be controlled too, and electing them has value for that reason alone.
 
my vote really doesn't count for anything.

It does if we elect people that won't be controlled. Why do you think Donald Trump is hated by status quo elites on both sides? It's because he's not a scripted pawn.

Yeah but they're trying to throw him and his entire family in prison which sends a message loud and clear to anyone who threatens the status quo.
 

Forum List

Back
Top