Russian invasion of Ukraine

Well, it's taken a turn, hasn't it? Russia getting into bed with China.

Which direction will they be looking, East, West, or both?

There are lots of possibilities that will be concentrating minds at the moment.
 
Didsbury Dave said:
Every time I read up on this situation I thank a god I don’t believe in that Trump is not in charge for this.
Click to expand...
We're actually in this situation because Trump spent four years undermining and weakening NATO and trying to give Putin everything he wanted and licking his arse in the process.

Trump would have pulled US troops out of Europe by now and handed Ukraine to Putin on a plate with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to follow.
 
west didsblue said:
We're actually in this situation because Trump spent four years undermining and weakening NATO and trying to give Putin everything he wanted and licking his arse in the process.

Trump would have pulled US troops out of Europe by now and handed Ukraine to Putin on a plate with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to follow.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall Trump wanting other Nato members to pay what they agreed to pay. Only Poland was paying the agreed 2% of GDP. The rest were are relying on the US for their defence. Its difficult to spin that demand into somehow weakening NATO.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
I seem to recall Trump wanting other Nato members to pay what they agreed to pay. Only Poland was paying the agreed 2% of GDP. The rest were are relying on the US for their defence. Its difficult to spin that demand into somehow weakening NATO.
Click to expand...
Trump did indeed want member Nato nations to pay more.

Trump also expressed the desire to withdraw from Nato entirely and questioned the need for its existence.
www.cbsnews.com

A guide to Trump's past comments about NATO

President meets with NATO's chief, but has been fiercely critical of the 68-year-old military alliance since the start of his campaign, having previously called it "obsolete"
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

Trump single-handedly did more to screw up geopolitics than any other world leader not actively engaged in warfare.

Tore up the Iran nuclear deal (not an ideal treaty for sure but the US committed to it and Iran was abiding by the treaty) - now Iran is openly pursing nuclear weapons and the USA can no longer be trusted to abide by its treaties.

Cozied up to Kim Jon-Un - which is to say, KJU played Trump like a fish. A slight insult here - followed by lavish praise there. Meanwhile North Korea has nuclear capability and is well on the way towards developing ICBMs.

And Russia. Russia went so far as to have a bounty on the assassination of overseas US troops - and even that didn't push Trump to condemnation of Putin.

And now we have a very emboldened Russia on the verge of annexing the Ukraine.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
I seem to recall Trump wanting other Nato members to pay what they agreed to pay. Only Poland was paying the agreed 2% of GDP. The rest were are relying on the US for their defence. Its difficult to spin that demand into somehow weakening NATO.
Click to expand...
Trump was deliberately conflating two things. There is a NATO target for member countries to pay 2% of their GDP on their own defence. It would only be when there is an Article 5 attack on a NATO country when the rest of NATO would be obliged to help the country under attack that any underfunding of armed forces would become a real concern if that country could not meet its obligation. Since NATO was formed Article 5 has been invoked just once as a result of 9/11 and a NATO coalition consequently invaded Afghanistan. There has been no suggestion that any individual country did not pull its weight in Afghanistan.

In terms of the running costs of NATO, member contributions are proportional to GDP and everyone pays their way accordingly. Trump made it sound like he was subsidising other countries when in fact the US proportionately pays exactly the same as everyone else on NATO's running costs. Trump made NATO weaker by not standing with allies and instead favouring opponents like Putin and Kim.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
I dont think they do. 2% was agreed.

Click to expand...
Like I said, the 2% is what countries are expected to spend on their own defence, not their contribution to NATO. Other countries in NATO do not subsidise the defence of the countries that haven't met this target. It would likely become an issue if Article 5 is invoked. This is the how NATO is funded in terms of proportion of its direct funding.
210104-cost-shared-cb-mb.jpg


As you can see, direct NATO funding bears no relation to overall defence spending and it looks like the US contribution has been reduced to the level of Germany.
 
Last edited:
west didsblue said:
Like I said, the 2% is what countries are expected to spend on their own defence, not their contribution to NATO. Other countries in NATO do not subsidise the defence of the countries that haven't met this target. It would likely become an issue if Article 5 is invoked. This is the how NATO is funded in terms of proportion of its direct funding.
210104-cost-shared-cb-mb.jpg


As you can see, direct NATO funding bears no relation to overall defence spending and it looks like the US contribution has been reduced to the level of Germany.
Click to expand...
Many countries don't spend the 2% that they agreed to. You said they did?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top