What is NATO? Is it really just the United States?

[Seymour Flops]

It seems like it. If I'm wrong, tell me how.

The NATO commander is always an America General who is also head of the U.S. forces in Europe. Why not a Canadian or a Brit general?

The U.S. bears the brunt of the cost of NATO. There are two parts to the "cost of NATO." There is the cost to run the organization itself, which is about three billion dollars. A small amount relative to international military deployment. That pays for the paper pushers, presentation writers and some joint equipment.

The real spending, and the real power, of NATO is the militaries of the individual nations. The U.S., with the largest economy of any NATO country, spends also the largest percent of it's GDP on the military.

Part of that is stationing U.S. troops and equipment in NATO countries, so that it is impossible to attack them without attacking the Unites States. That was the advantage that Ukraine did not get when it was not allowed into NATO.

The other countries are simply refusing to spend even their agreed upon 2% of GDP on the military. Why should they? The U.S. is powerful, willing to be taken advantage of, and has offered our service people as human shields in their countries.

Look at it this way: If every other nation in NATO wants to enter the war in the Ukraine against the Russians, but the U.S. says no, then no it is. In fact the precise reason that Europe refuses to act to stop this aggression is that they are not guaranteed U.S. support in defending Ukraine, but they are guaranteed U.S. support in defending their own countries.

By "support," I mean "salvation," of course. The U.S. needs to stop being the Jesus of the world.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

Modern imperialism is all it is.


Disband NATO.

Stop the worldwide wars.

Stop the policing.

Close military installations worldwide.

Infographic: History of US interventions in the past 70 years

The US controls about 750 bases in 80 countries and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[LA RAM FAN]

One thing they are is an evil warmonger operation just like the cia,fbi and fed.

 

[Donald H]

Look at it this way: If every other nation in NATO wants to enter the war in the Ukraine against the Russians, but the U.S. says no, then no it is. In fact the precise reason that Europe refuses to act to stop this aggression is that they are not guaranteed U.S. support in defending Ukraine, but they are guaranteed U.S. support in defending their own countries.

Now it's time to understand that Europe doesn't want a war with Russia.

Seriously? you think that the Ukraine is such a formidable military force that would scare Europe off?

There are several reasons to say that you haven't thought out your ideas very well. Without America's involvement, Europe would most likely be at peace with Russia. Ritter pretty much said just that!

 

[Seymour Flops]

Now it's time to understand that Europe doesn't want a war with Russia.

Seriously? you think that the Ukraine is such a formidable military force that would scare Europe off?

There are several reasons to say that you haven't thought out your ideas very well. Without America's involvement, Europe would most likely be at peace with Russia. Ritter pretty much said just that!

Your post made no sense at all. Of course Europe isn't afraid of Ukraine. Nor would it be likely to enter the war on the side of Russia against Ukraine. So, what does it matter that they are not afraid of Ukraine?

Their fear, if it is a fear, is a fear of fighting Russia. But "fear" is not the right word. They have no intention of fighting Russia, but they would be happy to let the U.S. come in and fight Russia.

As to the rest, if you're going to throw out some out of left field claim like "Without America's involvement, Europe would most likely be at peace with Russia," then you need to explain if you expect any kind of discussion about it. That Ritter (whoever that is) "pretty much" said it, is neither explanation, nor evidence.

 

[Toro]

LOL

Russian d-lister trolls.

 

[Ringo]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/11/nato-ukraine-refugees-whiteness/

 

[Rigby5]

Your post made no sense at all. Of course Europe isn't afraid of Ukraine. Nor would it be likely to enter the war on the side of Russia against Ukraine. So, what does it matter that they are not afraid of Ukraine?

Their fear, if it is a fear, is a fear of fighting Russia. But "fear" is not the right word. They have no intention of fighting Russia, but they would be happy to let the U.S. come in and fight Russia.

As to the rest, if you're going to throw out some out of left field claim like "Without America's involvement, Europe would most likely be at peace with Russia," then you need to explain if you expect any kind of discussion about it. That Ritter (whoever that is) "pretty much" said it, is neither explanation, nor evidence.

The US deliberately caused the current conflict to happen by taking over the government in Kyiv by coup in 2014.
It was direct bribes by the US, similar to the millions paid to Hunter Biden, that caused the whole conflict.
The US talked the government in Kyiv into stealing Russian oil, violating treaties, trying to join NATO, etc., all of which are illegal acts of war.

Scott Ritter is a one of the UN inspectors sent to Iraq, who blew the lid on the fact there were never any WMD in Iraq.
And he has published an expose how the US set this all up, forcing Russia to invade.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The US deliberately caused the current conflict to happen by taking over the government in Kyiv by coup in 2014.
It was direct bribes by the US, similar to the millions paid to Hunter Biden, that caused the whole conflict.
The US talked the government in Kyiv into stealing Russian oil, violating treaties, trying to join NATO, etc., all of which are illegal acts of war.

Scott Ritter is a one of the UN inspectors sent to Iraq, who blew the lid on the fact there were never any WMD in Iraq.
And he has published an expose how the US set this all up, forcing Russia to invade.

Trying to join NATO is an illegal act of war? What law does it violate?

 

[Rigby5]

Trying to join NATO is an illegal act of war? What law does it violate?

When Gorbachev negotiated the independence of the Ukraine in 1992, the main condition was that the Ukraine was prohibited from ever joining any alliance hostile to Russia.
Since the Ukraine violated that treaty, it is null and void, so then the Ukraine reverts back to the status of before 1992.
Violations of treaties are acts of war.
It is contractual, not legislative.

 

[para bellum]

Look at it this way: If every other nation in NATO wants to enter the war in the Ukraine against the Russians, but the U.S. says no, then no it is. In fact the precise reason that Europe refuses to act to stop this aggression is that they are not guaranteed U.S. support in defending Ukraine, but they are guaranteed U.S. support in defending their own countries.

My view. Any nation can enter the war on whichever side they want, of their own free will and at their own risk.

When the US went to war in Iraq, no one said NATO was going to war in Iraq.

ISAF was created by UN resolution in 2001, but NATO took it over in 2003 until it was ended in 2014. There were a dozen non-NATO partners in ISAF.

If every country in NATO but the US goes to war in Ukraine, NATO is not at war, they are. If one of those countries is bombed because they chose to go to war, I don't think Article 5 would apply- we would not be obligated to join the war just because a NATO ally did.

Academic, because it would never happen that way. There are lots of non-NATO countries providing assistance to Ukraine too.

Part of the issue in Europe is what you mentioned prev- 30 years of low defense budgets means there's not much hardware to spare. European militaries are already skeleton forces. They can spare 5 guns from one country and 7 from another, and here's 12 tanks but we have no ammunition.

That means anything they provide hits NATO's capability to execute it's primary mission. It becomes a NATO issue- does everyone agree Germany can spare 7 guns? There is a minimum inventory that has to be maintained.

If military equipment from a NATO country has restricted technology- an IFF library, or encrypted comms, or NCTR profiles, it can't be exported until that's fixed. If it's compromised, it impacts all NATO members. (That's why Turkey is out of the F-35 for buying S-400's).

That's the military side. The sanctions side is an EU thing- I think the EU has to be unanimous to ban oil imports, even though any single country can buy oil or gas from whoever they want.

Part of that is stationing U.S. troops and equipment in NATO countries, so that it is impossible to attack them without attacking the Unites States.

Bottom line? The real reason we keep forces in Europe (and Japan and South Korea) is to keep those countries from tearing each other's throats out. And oh btw, it helps to have an external enemy, no need to name names....

 

[alexa]

It seems like it. If I'm wrong, tell me how.

The NATO commander is always an America General who is also head of the U.S. forces in Europe. Why not a Canadian or a Brit general?

The U.S. bears the brunt of the cost of NATO. There are two parts to the "cost of NATO." There is the cost to run the organization itself, which is about three billion dollars. A small amount relative to international military deployment. That pays for the paper pushers, presentation writers and some joint equipment.

The real spending, and the real power, of NATO is the militaries of the individual nations. The U.S., with the largest economy of any NATO country, spends also the largest percent of it's GDP on the military.

Part of that is stationing U.S. troops and equipment in NATO countries, so that it is impossible to attack them without attacking the Unites States. That was the advantage that Ukraine did not get when it was not allowed into NATO.

The other countries are simply refusing to spend even their agreed upon 2% of GDP on the military. Why should they? The U.S. is powerful, willing to be taken advantage of, and has offered our service people as human shields in their countries.

Look at it this way: If every other nation in NATO wants to enter the war in the Ukraine against the Russians, but the U.S. says no, then no it is. In fact the precise reason that Europe refuses to act to stop this aggression is that they are not guaranteed U.S. support in defending Ukraine, but they are guaranteed U.S. support in defending their own countries.

By "support," I mean "salvation," of course. The U.S. needs to stop being the Jesus of the world.

|I think you will find for the first that countries pay proportionately. I know the UK spends more than the 2% and that most of the countries who substantially do not pay the 2% are Eastern European. I believe there is also a difference in what people possess to go to Nato and what they possess for their own private use....and frankly I am not sure the continual pressure on Germany to produce more is a good thing.

Nato does feel primarily the US. People were fighting to support the US. You are the country which is always at war. You are the country which makes its money by the production of weapons and war, so it should be expected that you would, for your own interest, put more in or even be obliged to. I think if it had not been for this Russian thing that the EU might soon have left NATO. You did not set this up for that did you?

I hear that soon Europe is not going to be a place where it is in the US's interest to protect as it has been since WW2. Possibly that is the reason for the whining in the US about what people pay.

 

[para bellum]

I think you will find for the first that countries pay proportionately. I know the UK spends more than the 2% and that most of the countries who substantially do not pay the 2% are Eastern European.

Hmmm. I think if you look, you will find the exact opposite. The Eastern European NATO countries pay more than 2% of their GDP on defense, and Western European Countries and Canada are less than 2%. The US is 3-4%.

I think the UK finally got to 2% this year, maybe last year? For the past 20 years at least, Western European NATO countries hovered around 1%.

The US has more than just NATO to worry about. We also have allies in the Pacific that we are committed to. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea. So not all of our defense spending can be NATO-oriented, and we should not blame our budget problems on NATO not paying enough- (but most of NATO still does not pay enough).

You are the country which makes its money by the production of weapons and war, so it should be expected that you would, for your own interest, put more in or even be obliged to

There are no weapons makers in Europe? Most European weapons manufacturers wouldn't even be in business without the export markets. EU countries don't buy enough of anything to justify making it unless there are export customers. Most NATO allies (Canada is an exception) kit out as much as possible in European gear, fly European-built airplanes, use European-made armor, and operate European-built ships and submarines.

So to that point, I disagree. We don't care who you buy it from, but we do want you to try to spend at least 2% of your GDP on defense.

If someone wants to leave NATO, they are free to do that. France did, and later changed their minds and came back. It wasn't a crisis, NATO went on without France just fine.

 

[alexa]

Hmmm. I think if you look, you will find the exact opposite. The Eastern European NATO countries pay more than 2% of their GDP on defense, and Western European Countries and Canada are less than 2%. The US is 3-4%.

I think the UK finally got to 2% this year, maybe last year? For the past 20 years at least, Western European NATO countries hovered around 1%.

[/QUOTE]

You will have to provide data for this because the UK to my knowledge has been above 2% for a long time and last time I looked 2 or 3 years ago it was as I said. It should also be noted that European Countries were only asked by Obama to work towards raising it to 2% so much of the shrilling out the US is just pure nonsense. If they can choose how much they put in then obviously they will which is what countries did.. That does not change the fact that the US does pay 69% towards NATO nor that the US had been very willing to pay this when it believed it had a need of Europe.

 

[para bellum]

You will have to provide data for this because the UK to my knowledge has been above 2% for a long time and last time I looked 2 or 3 years ago it was as I said. It should also be noted that European Countries were only asked by Obama to work towards raising it to 2% so much of the shrilling out the US is just pure nonsense. If they can choose how much they put in then obviously they will which is what countries did.. That does not change the fact that the US does pay 69% towards NATO nor that the US had been very willing to pay this when it believed it had a need of Europe.
[/QUOTE]
Just a quick look. Okay, the UK is above the 2% mark, I stand corrected. Should have looked first.

The rest of what I said is supported by NATO numbers.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf

 

[para bellum]

Countries were only asked by Obama to work towards raising it to 2% so much of the shrilling out the US is just pure nonsense.

Actually every US Prsident since Clinton has asked NATO members to up their defense spending. Some have been more forceful about it than others...

 

[alexa]

[Para Bellum]quote]Just a quick look. Okay, the UK is above the 2% mark, I stand corrected. Should have looked first.[/quote]

Thank you. The UK is and has been since at least 2014

The rest of what I said is supported by NATO numbers.

I wouldn't go that far!! Very few countries are at the 2% level so in that we were both wrong. If you look at 2014 all the EE are below and generally very well below even those who by 2018 had managed to get themselves up.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf

[/QUOTE]

 

[Toro]

 

[alexa]

Actually every US Prsident since Clinton has asked NATO members to up their defense spending. Some have been more forcefuful.

So you are saying George Bush was not as forceful as Obama - he is the only President between Clinton and Obama and it is from Obama and based on the 2% he asked for that people have been working to change.

 

[para bellum]

So you are saying George Bush was not as forceful as Obama - he is the only President between Clinton and Obama and it is from Obama and based on the 2% he asked for that people have been working to change.

No, I'm saying Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump all asked NATO countries to pay the 2%.

Trump was the only one that was very forceful about it.

It's not a US made-up number- it's part of the NATO agreement. It's not a dictate, and it's considered the floor. More than 2% is welcomed. If everyone did it, NATO would be that much stronger.

There is a feeling in the US that a big reason other countries slide, is because the US can be relied on to pick up the slack.