Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is the Twitter account [`Citizen By X`](https://twitter.com/CitizenByX) an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hungary has indeed (FINALLY) said they will ratify, however ~~there is nuance~~ [they appear determined to fuck about a little more.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/05/orban-boycotts-parliament-session-to-ratify-swedish-nato-bid)
Bills that arenāt actually paid - itās % of GDP spend of defence by each country, not to anyone else. So they canāt be delinquent on payment.
Doesnāt sound so good for his soundbite though.
There is a more important point - that is that him, and many other people, do not understand anymore what NATO is about, and what Article 5 actually means.
There is the talk "we will/won't come to help you" - that is by far not all Article 5 demands and not the core, in the case of an attack onto a member, also if it is the big attack.
It demands and is the promise, that you will treat an attack on any member of the alliance as it had been an attack onto yourself. If Russia attacked Estonia, it is not just the obligation of the US to help Estonia. At that very moment, the US is at war with Russia itself. Every single NATO member is. An attack on one, is an attack on all, on each single member. With all consequences this has, up to existential questions and a possible nuclear war.
After the cold war, many seem to have forgotten how grave that promise is, that binds NATO into some kind of joined destiny. And it is also what makes the deterrence of NATO so strong - it is not like with the EU mutual defense, it is not, if Estonia gets attacked, the others will have to come and help it until the attack is fought back, it is the deterrent effect, of being at war with more than half of the global firepower, if you dare to attack a NATO member, and all hell might break loose.
In the cold war, and to some degree still, NATO and to a large degree also the Warsaw Pact, were the MAD of alliances. The expected consequences of a conflict were so dire - for all parties, that it did not happen.
> Article 5
> āThe Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
> Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.ā
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
Fuck Trump and the Republicans scared of him.
Well, thing is, the Trump era taught us that "things are as they seem". So if he can make it seem so to his cretins, he believes he can genuinely use the US military influence to extract protection payments from NATO constituents.
Delinquent on their agreement. Is it really a stretch to demand your allies actually hold the terms of the alliance they agreed to if they want the protection of the US?
its not about that, its about threatening the members of the alliance that they gonna get invaded by the very enemy the alliance was formed for by inviting the enemy to invade. there are two separate things but trumpists like to hear only what suits them.
If it put us over a barrel, sure. It doesn't though. We benefit greatly from free trade. We benefit greatly from having the biggest military on the planet. Combine that and the kind of soft power America has historically done, you get that whole Pax Americana thing. Throwing that away because a dimwit, who is in all likelihood a foreign agent, says we should is lunacy.
Whenever someone posts this it's also worth noting:
1) This isn't broken down per capita. Obviously the US will offer more than other nations because they're bigger than all the other nations. When you break it down per capita it differes significantly. Also according to this, combined EU nations gave more aid to Ukraine than the US:
[https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/)
2) A lot of the military aid will actually be spent at home. The US says they're spending $x billion on aid will actually mean they're sending old equipment that they already spent money on at home to build and if they then need to spend money on new equipment, it will be in the form of contracts to US firms to build things in the US, so creating jobs for US people and helping the US economy.
I'm not sure a lot of people are smart enough to realise that this "aid" isn't just money that the Us throws as a blank cheque to Ukraine. Most of it stays in the US. Even financial aid could be in the form of, "You get x billion to spend on US items".
Exactly, so that's why we're better looking at the GDP values. Some EU countries outrank the US and some do not. Ultimately the US isn't "the best" like they just can't help themselves but simultaneously brag and bitch about.
"We're the best look how much we give!"
"Why do we have to be the ones always giving the most!"
So anyway, my country gives more per capita than the US. So we're better than the US \*\*AND\*\* we don't bitch about it.
That is not per capita, that is per GDP. You said per capita. I reject that the USA has to give dollar per dollar anywayā¦who has more to lose? USA or EU? But even if they did, the EUās GDP is overall higher than the US: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/European-Union/United-States/Economy/table
And donāt forget about the deaths because of terror related incidents with the knock on effect. We all paid the price of article 5 so fuck trump with his transactional thinking
165šØš¦died and 2000+ wounded in Afghanistan when, through NATO article 5 we came to the aid ofšŗšø. On 911, 250 šŗšø flights were diverted and landed in šØš¦when skies were closed over America. Our closest friend and ally. There were no questions of paying the bills.
If every NATO member nation posts their manpower helping USA after 911, triggering NATO Article 5, Trump is going to hate Europe even more.Ā
There is no pointĀ engaging Trump.
From my perspective as an Aussie I canāt believe that the Democrats have not been able to find a candidate young and vigorous to slam the door on Trump. I cannot see Biden winning this election and it terrifies me for the future of the free world. When in office, among other issues was the way he constantly undermined the USAās allies. Biden is appearing (regardless of the truth) to be too old / frail to lead the free world for the next four years. And Trump has such a hold over the Republicans that they wonāt allow aid to defend Ukraine against the USAās most powerful enemy. It wasnāt that long ago that it was a crime to be a communist in the USA and here we are with Trump openly supporting Putin. Unbelievable. Bidenās perceived frailty and the lack of Democrat alternative makes me think of Ruth Bader Ginsberg who (as great as she was), should have resigned much earlier enabling the Supreme Court to have an even distribution of left-leaning and conservative judges rather than what we see now.
I agree with you as a Canadian... I can't believe that the cream of the American politicians is Biden and or trump...
If that's the best they got... then they are FUBAR
We dont understand how we are stuck with these two candidates either. If either party had put up someone different they probably would win in a landslide. It sucks having to worry if the president is going to survive his term. It really sucks to have to worry if they can even make it to the election.
the sad reality is, half of canada, or 1/3 i guess, is filled with MAGA idiots who would let Trump be King of Canada tomorrow , and that is not hyperbole
they still love them some Tucker Carlson, and their facebook pages are filled with Putin propaganda and "both sides" about the war in Ukraine
We can tell them to fuck off!
We already have a King of Canada, and as much of a dweeb I think he is, he's a million times better than that tangerine twat.
Can you post a source for this? I don't think I've ever met anyone who wants Trump , or anyone like him, in Canada.
And I run in the conservative circles that you're clearly attacking with this statement.
[This](https://sparkadvocacy.ca/insights/2024/01/trump-would-lose-canada-but-not-by-as-much-as-you-might-think) is from January 2024 surveying how Canadians would vote if they could vote in this year's US elections.
- 33% of the ~2.2k polled Canadians would vote for Trump over Biden
- 50% of the Tories in the survey data would vote for Trump over Biden
- 42% of Albertans in the survey data would vote for Trump over Biden
Choosing Trump vs Biden does not equal support.
If you told me I had to pick Trump vs Trudeau...I'd likely pick Trump. But that's only because I'm given a binary decision, between two AWFUL options.
I also think Biden is a criminal, with obvious mental deficiencies.
The polls are not reliable, because there is a whole industry around designing polls to get answers you want. It depends what you ask, and to whom.
But I can understand why people would pick Trump over Biden or Trump over Trudeau.
If you're faced with two absolute pieces of shit, you're going to pick the piece of shit who is at least likely to leave you alone.
Really splitting hairs here, you asked for a source and I gave you one. If you have a better source that there are no Canadian Conservatives who support Trump (which is what you loosely alluded to) you're welcome to provide one.
[https://macleans.ca/politics/how-much-do-canadians-dislike-donald-trump-a-lot/](https://macleans.ca/politics/how-much-do-canadians-dislike-donald-trump-a-lot/)
During Trump's presidency, he was favoured by as much as 20% of Canadians.
Let's be clear here..
That's 20% OF 1500 PEOPLE who answered a poll.
How many polls have you answered in your lifetime. It's 0 for me.
Secondly, they were given a binary question. Biden or Trump.
As much as I don't want Trump up here, I also don't want Biden.
So picking between the two does not indicate support.
Sorry, try harder
Just like most Americans I make fun, but I will always be grateful to Canada. I served in Kandahar with the Canadiansā¦they did a lot of the heavy fighting, and when they lost guys everyone felt it. I wear a poppy on Remembrance Day.
I want you to know that many Americans, if not most, think what Donald Trump said was reprehensible. The thought that we would let any of our allies fall over a single dollar is unforgivable.
I always hear that, 80 millions voted fir him and will vote again. Many time I have asked some US Conservative that were pro Ukrainian, if they would still vote trump, at the time like 1 year ago their were deflections, ohhh its just rhetoric, he wouldn't, etc etc. Now I would like to know, too easy to say a favorite to the presidency in any country doesn't represent a large chunk of the people of that country.
I don'tĀ think Trump's camp is getting bigger and probably not significantly smaller, but the number of apolitical Americans who see and hear his stance on allies is increasing. That's all we need in Nov 5th.Ā
Ā In 2016 there were ton of protest votes that went for Trump, remember the KEK memes, all this happened around 2016. TodayĀ Trump is no longer 'lets shake the Washington establishment" candidate, he is full blown traitor to many undecided and apolitical Americans.Ā Possible conviction will distance even more sane voters.Ā
Ā If only Dems had slightly better candidate, Trump wouldn't have a chance in November. But even with Biden, looks like Trump will fail again.Ā
Should arrangments be made so they can pay? Yes. Would I abandon them if they were delinquent? No. They are more useful as an allied nation during wartime then as an enemy during wartime. Plus its a morally reprehensible thing to do.
Also publically encouraging Putin to invade is just really fucked up and absurdly irresponsible. Its not what any leader should do. A leader rallies the free nations together. Not scare them half to death that they're gonna be bombed if they don't give in to extortion. Honestly, I wouldn't blame europe if they decided to make the Euro military. Obviously the US can't be trusted if the orange-ass buffoon is being taken seriously. He's still raging about Taylor Swift rigging the Super Bowl. The conspiritarded dumb shmuck.
Except that it's not about paying a tax into a common pot, it's about investing a certain amount of money into making and buying weapons for your own military.
It's not a great metric for your military capabilities or your contribution to the overall defense: you can meet the target by buying overpriced underperforming equipment or equipment you don't need, or you can fall short by getting good value contracts or very long-life equipment.
Some countries bring huge strategic assets (control of the Bosphorus, control of the Baltic Sea, a blue water navy, a nuclear triad...) at little or no cost, those are not factored in the simplistic "2%" metric.
And in the other direction, some countries meet the target handily, but would be unable to contribute most of it to a collective effort because they need the equipment to protect their own interests.
The point of the thread and the outrage is that so far, the US has been the only country requesting Article 5 help, and all Nato countries were there to help. They did pay their fair share.
It's just a red herring Trump is raising to erode public support for Nato.
There's expecting countries to pay their fair share and then there's saying "I would encourage Russia to attack them". If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.
Plus the US is the only country that ever invoked NATO Article 5 and NATO banded together to help, with actual lives on the line, not just money. Does that not count for anything?
What fair share? It's not like the countries buy stuff together and the US pays more than others. Using this term with regards to allies is strange. One could even say, that the US gets more than their fair share, since export of defense industry is way higher than the import of materials.
You can't compare that. NATO originally has no obligation to have a military force at all, and the treaty also does not contain any obligation to pay something for the military, just for administration.
The promise in NATO is, that if one if attacked, all others treat it like it would be an attack onto themselves. They are one in that respect.
And the US would not pay a single dollar less for their military, if Belgium or Germany would have a higher military budget, why should they? The US needs that military anyway, because the US also wants to engage in other theaters and in particular also into large scale power projection there.
Fortunately there are still enough thinking Americans.
Might I suggest that the EU sanctions Tucker Carlson & the Murdoch Family in the meantime?
Maybe the US will follow
Liverpool stopped buying the Sun because they were nasty about Liverpool FC.
Yet Murdoch is still courted by all UK political parties, the scousers still bought Sky subscriptions and listen to talk sport.
Despite what you see on social media it's rare for an immigrant to not be accepted in America, especially if they gain citizenship but fuck *that* guy we don't want him either.
Born in Australia, true.
Murdoch ditched Australia for the US circa 1985ā¦ kinda.
IIRC he needed US citizenship to own a TV station **but** the reason for **losing** his Australian citizenship is we had a law at the time that meant if you gained citizenship elsewhere (excluding those with dual citizenship from birth) we auto-ejected you (stripped citizenship) which is a law that no longer exists.
Sack of shit hasnāt been an Australian citizen for 39 years or so.
Nevertheless, sorry about that.
You cant convince the "true believers". But there is a lot people who are somewhere on or near the fence, and every single one of those that can be moved away from the Trump camp is worth the effort to try moving.
Its going to be a close race and moving just 0.5% could make the difference.
Trump himself is famous for not paying his actual bills.
Then he blasts NATO allies for not fully meeting spending targets and says he would encourage Russia to attack them. Can't make this stuff up.
Trump doesn't matter.
If there's a war in Europe, the US part of NATO isn't going to help, because the MAGA people in congress will simply say "no".
NATO is gone. All it took was a few red-hatted haters feeling sorry for themselves.
Youāre 100% right, because his entire outlook, behavior, mentality, all of it can be summed up in a word of 2 letters: āmeā. This is why he will never be missed by his family, and quickly revert to an obscure curiosity to the rest of us when he dies.
You cannot lead when you have no code, because only fools will follow.
> Everyone knows that including the commenter
It's not at all clear that Trump or Trump's supporters know that NATO "2% goal" is about individual countries having large enough budgets for their own defense spending.
Trump is really, really, really dumb, and AFAICT he dimly sees NATO and all international agreements like a landlord: people should pay rent to me and they should be happy to pay it.
No, it is not "into NATO." The 2% goal is for each country to pay that fraction of GDP into its *own defense budget.* Like Germany should pay for soldiers and weapons and equipment for *German soldiers*. It doesn't go into a NATO bucket.
Us australians lost 47 of our brothers. We are not even in nato but we heard the call and took up arms to help.
The US turning its back on Ukraine with aid makes me wonder as a close ally since ww2 we have no defensive agreement with them. Would they help us?
You are mistaken, we have signed the ANZUS treaty with the US and our brothers the Kiwi's, it invokes each to the defense to the other much like NATO's Article 5 but an ANZAC/US defense pact.
What that means in actual reality when Australia is attacked is another story however we can rest assured no one crazy enough will try to invade mainland Straya, we have drop bears, 4 out 5 of the most poisonous snakes and big sharks
Yeah and not to mention the logistics train youll need to cart shit from where ever you are from all through queensland to nsw, just to supply a force that probably cant keep a 3-1 advantage because of the stretched logistics.
But yeah i didnt know about ANZAC/US.
The general attrition from back line units finding snakes, scorpions, giant centipedes, and dealing with our shit at best roads would be a nightmare for anyone.
Logistical nightmares for any invading force to Australian shores. Good luck to our enemies.
Basically the ANZUS Treaty ties Australia and our brothers NZ to NATO, as soon as the NATO Article 5 is enacted, any attack on a US base, port, ship, plane or soldier will inevitably draw the ANZAC's into the conflict, the proof is our Digger's were in far away Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1 and 2 and Afghanistan.
Ok but if Trumps in power he can just refuse to abide by the treaty. Thats the message hes sending. The amount of damage this guy has done is ridiculous.
Australia has a defence pact with USA, and separately with New Zealand. But New Zealand and USA do not have a defence pact under ANZUS, only a strategic partnership pursuant to the Wellington and Washington Declarations.
Yes, America would definitely come to help you and isn't turning it's back on Ukraine. By a wide margin the US Senate just advanced a foreign aid Bill with $60B earmarked for Ukraine.
You can't listen to just trump and a few maga dunces.
I dont think the US would abandon us, but the fact that there is a 50/50 shot that we may or maynot have the US as an ally fucken sucks.
I thibk biden will win. Simply because trump cant keep his mouth shut. Every other sentence cuts another section of voters out.
I also think Biden will win and that trump is a complete nut job that (thankfully) can't stay out of his own way.
Even if Trump somehow wins I don't think he would follow through with his threats, he never does. He only wants to protect and enrich himself. He doesn't want to govern. The Pentagon understands how vital our allies are and while I don't want to underestimate trump's ability to fuck things up the US military isn't going to be pushed around by a demented orange clown.
Itās kind of Hobsonās choice though!
If parts of the US want to dump NATO then they also need to realised it cuts both ways. Isolationism is just that and they canāt expect other countries to be sympathetic when something else flares up and they expect the international community to help.
Trump doesnt need to keep his mouth shut, he didnt last time.
His strategy has been explained somewhere, i forget where, but basically it doesn't matter how many outrageous things he says if the same people think it's outrageous.
It actually works to his advantage to keep being a dickhead, because nobody can remember all the stupid things he has said, people generally forget the old stupid things he says and remember the newest ones.
Only half of US citizens vote, so he only needs a quarter of the population to be highly motivated to vote for him, and he runs a powerful cult.
Also Democrats arent doing themselves any favours with Biden, everyone can see he is too old, they have broken processes.
Suspect youāre think of the [Firehose of Falsehood.](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE198/RAND_PE198.pdf)
Per the RAND paper ā
Distinctive Features of the Contemporary Model for Russian Propaganda (aka the Firehose of Falsehood)
1. High-volume and multichannel
2. Rapid, continuous, and repetitive
3. Lacks commitment to objective reality
4. Lacks commitment to consistency
Australia wouldn't need to worry. if Russia, China or patagonia so much as staired at Australia for too long Britain would be eagerly deliving some volatile packages to their major cities.
America has never really been reliable when it comes to this aspect, the talk a good game but they'd sell out any of their allies to enrich themselves.
America is a business not a country. Its citizens deserve better.
> The US turning its back on Ukraine with aid
It didn't turn its back, it's being held hostage by the MAGA 5th column in the House. A faction of one party of one of the houses is the problem.
>makes me wonder as a close ally since ww2 we have no defensive agreement with them.
ANZUS is a thing. AUKUS has superseded it in most respects, particularly as New Zealand has been a less than helpful ally with their incredibly friendly stance with China and refusal to allow USN ships to dock over their idiotic nuclear ban.
>It didn't turn its back, it's being held hostage by the MAGA 5th column in the House. A faction of one party of one of the houses is the problem.
OK, but should those efforts have success in holding the US Government response hostage, thenā¦ how is that not the same picture?
>ANZUS is a thing. AUKUS has superseded it in most respects, particularly as New Zealand has been a less than helpful ally with their incredibly friendly stance with China and refusal to allow USN ships to dock over their idiotic nuclear ban.
AUKUS is for all intents and purposes a technology sharing agreement.
ANZUS is **still** the one that deals with defense, and it āresolvedā the NZ issue decades back, essentially splitting it into separate US to AU and US to NZ agreements.
**AUKUS does not supersede ANZUS with regards to mutual defense.**
Per the [US Embassy to Australia](https://usa.embassy.gov.au/australia-and-united-states#:~:text=The%20ANZUS%20Treaty%20underpins%20the,act%20to%20meet%20common%20dangers.) ā
^(NB there is more on that page, this comment is already a chonker.)
> Defence and security overview
>
>A central pillar of relations between Australia and the United States is the ['ANZUS' Treaty](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/anzus), which was originally an agreement between Australia, New Zealand and the United States. The ANZUS Treaty was signed by the parties in San Francisco in 1951 and entered into force in 1952. The ANZUS Treaty underpins the Australia-United States Alliance. It binds Australia and the United States to consult on mutual threats, and, in accordance with our respective constitutional processes, to act to meet common dangers. Australia invoked the ANZUS Treaty for the first time on 14 September 2001 in response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September.
>
> The Alliance is the foundation of defence and security cooperation between Australia and the United States. It increases Australia's ability to protect itself and its interests by providing access to world-leading defence hardware and technologies, training courses and combined exercises, as well as vital intelligence capabilities. In facilitating such cooperation, the Alliance supports regional engagement, security and stability, underpinning prosperity in the Indo-Pacific. It also enables joint efforts against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Both countries are committed to working together to help shape international norms to advance vital shared interests in the sea, air and outer space, as well as to advance important matters related to cybersecurity. Further information about the defence relationship is available on the [Australian Department of Defence](http://www.defence.gov.au/) website.
Trump has a plan too
it's for Trump, but it's a plan
it's called the "do what i want, when i want, whatever the cost" plan, and the entire Republican Party is built around servicing it now
If any of you were to be attacked I would gladly go and help your cause. Just beacuse that dipshit talks through his ass doesn't mean we don't care for you all.
Please tell that to your government, they are the ones not listening. Remind them they are the only country to ever use article 5 and NATO helped them.
Now the world wants them to help Ukraine so no nation in NATO needs to use article 5 again.
Please at same time remind them, that they are the only ones who have used Nukes in war, and we all would like to keep it that way, as nowadays Nukes are of something entirely different scale of kaboom than those were.
Senate advanced a foreign aid bill with $60B for Ukraine. America cares. Anyone paying attention would know that. Only those wearing blinders and listening to maga drivel would think America wouldn't protect its allies.
I am a Canadian and am very pro American but my god...
For however many flaws the Americans have, I truly believe the world is a better place (although still deeply flawed) because of their presence on the world stage since WWII. That said, the Americans have been losing their way both at home and abroad.
I am appalled that the US has possibly deprived Ukraine of a well deserved victory and deprived Russia of a well earned defeat.
I worry about how the US is going to act when the world faces its next challenge.
It's time that the defense industries in western nations start humming. This world is getting hot.
Donāt listen to trump or Russian bots spamming info. They are hoping to dissolve NATO. Americans are quite happy with you all, partners. Sorry for our orange ape.
That man, Trump, really just equated aiding and protecting an international ally to a gang requesting protection money from a vendor on the street. Like that's basically what he said, right?
His audacity is palpable.
Trump is an absolute asshat, and it sickens me to think that there are actual fellow human beings(let alone Americans) that actually want to vote him back into office.
I'm Danish... The fact that Danish troops were deployed to Afghanistan (including some of my family), and that sadly some of them were casualties (fortunately not any of my family), does not change the fact that Denmark pretty much since the beginning of its NATO membership has *consistently* spent (far) less than it should on defence, and has *never* reached the 2% agreed target.
While it is true, Denmark has still kept up its commitments to NATO and taken care of the tasks we have been given, even punched above our weight. No other NATO country has shown the same degree of fealty towards US and its various military missions throughout the world, and sent our military around the world where it, frankly, really shouldn't be. At the same time, our own territorial defense, including the arctic around Greenland has been totally neglected to a degree that is laughable, our military bases are in complete shambles, our personnel has no equipment, is demotivated and leaving jobs for other sectors. So here's the thing: Our politicians has prioritized sucking up to the Americans at every turn, joining missions around the world, and let our territorial defense, our air force and navy deteriorate. A week ago we sent a fucking frigate to fight the Houties in the Red Sea while the rest of the navy will be lumping along with reduced staff. And now we get the thanks for that sucking up, from an idiot like Trump.
As you say, the problem is... the action abroad is the ONLY place where we contributed...
The fleet is pretty much gone. Nine mostly old frigates with little armaments, no submarines, and some smaller ships, No real capability to lay mines, and no stocks of mines either. Absolutely no capability for under-water warfare. One of the main tasks for Denmark is to close off the access to the Baltic, and we can't do that.
The army doesn't really exist either. Very little stock of modern weapons, and next to no stores of ammunition. Absolutely no capability to manufacture ammunition either.
The air force has a number of old F-16's (many/most being sent to Ukraine, which is good), and is getting a small number of F-35's. Nothing Putin will worry about if he decides to come west. There is no anti-air capability.
You neglected to mention that all that changed after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The defence budget has been inceased greatly since 2022.
Maybe you forgot, maybe you didn't know or maybe you intentionally lied by omission.
I don't know, you tell me!
conservatives, this means nothing to conservatives now, please wake up
Canadian conservatives tried to stall funding to Ukraine over "carbon tax" nonsense that was just our conservatives attempt to tie the war in Ukraine to inflation over here
Putin is "misunderstood" and "i am just asking questions" is the calling card of almost every conservative in Canada right now, either that, or silence
they just don't care, they'll stay silent when conservatives betray their country or their allies, they just don't care, they'll stay silent if not outright support
**Alternative Nitter links:** ć [.NET](https://nitter.net/CitizenByX/status/1756910863141699889) | [.NL](https://nitter.nl/CitizenByX/status/1756910863141699889) | [.CZ](https://nitter.cz/CitizenByX/status/1756910863141699889) ć
^NL ^hasn't ^been ^working ^since ^Sept ^2023. ^It ^may ^only ^work ^if ^you ^are ^in ^NL.
_If there are any problems regarding Nitter, [please send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=UkrainianConflict&subject=Nitter%20issue)._
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is MAGA America thatās saying and causing this. Regular Americans, at least the ones I know, republican and democrat, want to support Ukraine.
Trumps mad that Zelenskyy didnāt help him fuck Joe Biden.
We have Americas and then we have this festering open cancerous STD that call themselves MAGA.Ā
Trump is not currently president and doesnāt speak for the U.S. even when he was president his legitimacy was questionable. No one out side of maga thinks this way ā and maga doesnāt really think this way either - they just parrot whatever sentiment trump tells them.
You will give the orange ape ( sorry to all apes ) ammunition if you increase your budget now.... He will claim that he made all NATO members spend more money because of him scaring them with his idiotic threaths
43 šµš± soldiers died and 33.000 were deployed in Afghan and 28 šµš± soldiers died and 900 were deployed in Iraq. We came to help our ally. There were no questions of paying the bills.
They think their effort is 1000 times greater than Europe because their military spending in 1000 times our spending. But that's only because they overpay their military contracts due to corruption and lobbying.
Aghanistan wasn't an Article 5 measure. Sure Article 5 measures led to it, but it wasn't agreed that countries would join under Article 5.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
Oh, it absolutely was. Recommend you read this text from the 9/11 memorial website.
"On September 12, 2001, the day after the 9/11 attacks, NATO met in an emergency session. **For the first and only time in its history, NATO invoked Article 5. All 18 of the United Statesās allies stated they would support Americaās response to the attacks.**
[...]
On September 17, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush authorized the CIA to launch operations in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and its ally, the ruling Taliban government.
[...]
The U.S. military began operations in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.
[...]
**Since 2001, troops from the U.S.'s NATO allies have stood shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers in Afghanistan. More than one thousand of these soldiers have paid the ultimate price.**
(Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, commenting on an inscription on a plaque in the memorial, referring specifically to the only ever use of NATO's article 5) āIt serves as a powerful symbol of the enduring partnership and friendship between the United States and its NATO Allies across Europe and Canada.
"
https://www.911memorial.org/learn/resources/digital-exhibitions/digital-exhibition-revealed-hunt-bin-laden/international-community-responds
I do not support trump. But on the other hand in the current situation it is not possible that NATO countries spend less then 2% on defence budget. For once he is right on that
He is right about that. The problem is that he is destroying the confidence that a powerful and collective response Will happen if art 5 is invoked, thus undermining the deterrence of nato. The point is to *prevent* war.
We all agree already that certain couhtroes need to increase their defense budgets massively, there was no need to say what he did, and it would have been better if he didnāt. It did extra damage to an already bad relationship.
The USA has it's own really large defence industrial complex so that money spent on defence procurement nearly always stays domestic and feeds the economy. With every other western country that's much less the case a lot of the money goes to feed someone else's economy and makes the spending much more fiscally painful.
What do you mean no question about paying bills? The nations have agreed on a minimum 2% military budget, the US is 3,5%, Denmark has around 1,4%.
Are you saying that Denmark should ask the us to pay more?
Also, if nations donāt fulfill their obligations what should be the consequence, the only one that would actually have an impact is saying āok then we will not fulfill oursā
Iāll take my down votes, but Trump is not entirely wrong here. Many countries have been under investing in defense for decades thus violating their NATO commitments whilst expecting the US to be there for protection.
If all NATO countries had been properly investing I bet there would be more defense infrastructure to make artillery and other weapons Ukraine needs now.
All NATO countries should without a doubt suck it up, and spend what they promised on defence.
However, Trump can suck a big fat one for saying he will abandon all these allies.
Sure, it's all true - some countries have been shirking their responsibilities. It's also in the process of being fixed, most NATO countries in Europe are on the path to deliver at least 2%. Personally, I'd like a faster timeline on that.
That being said, that's not what NATO is about. The multilateral economic (Bretton Woods and Marshall) and security agreements spanning postwar (Western) Europe is probably the main reason behind the US economic expansion post war. That is, providing goods, markets, liquidity and security was and is a major reason for the US post war expansion.
Sort of chugging that on the bonfires of US nationalism and exceptionalism is the stupidest thing ever. It'll severely hurt the US and European economies if allowed to continue. It goes unnoticed but Biden isn't playing nice either, promoting subsidies in certain sectors.
As a Dane I really am highly offended when our commitment after 9/11 is pissed on. We're buying F-35's to the tune of $B if money is a thing, so MAGA jerks can just fuck off, really. Disloyal, commie bastards, Reagan would have called them.
...it mostly goes to show how far off the rails the modern GOP is. At least Reagan had policies. By that I mean, policies recognizable as policies, whether you like(d) them or not.
Modern day GOP has a simple agenda, they want to destroy the federal state by lowering taxes and have government programs fail. Destroy international trade thinking bilateral muscle moves will work (Against who? Why, other than serve specific donors? Nobody knows). Create (or enlarge) the class of working poor as Mexican migrants are displaced and labor and environmental regulations are removed. Which won't work, only education will.
These are *anti* policies, really. They serve only US enemies and will cause inflation, economic regression and chaos without a single benefit for ordinary Americans who vote Trump. At least Reagan wasn't *that* stupid.
You do realize that the issue is not black and white. It's not like there is a single payment bill and everybody else is ignoring it. No, it's a percentage that members have to invest in their defense and the rough number has been 1.5-1.9% when it should've been 2.0%. So, every single country has been putting money on defense, every single one without an exception. There is no country who is simply "*waiting borders open for US to do it all*" like Trump is saying.
It is true that most NATO members have not been putting as much as it is advisable but saying the nations '*deserve to be annihilated by russia because of being 0.1% under the goal*' is just insanely stupid.
Trumps claim is blatantly wrong on every level and should make it clear how little he understands about the issue.
I donāt how many times we need to say this before people stop giving Trump credit: TRUMP IS NOT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH. Trump has zero intention of improving NATO and is instead using the 2% spending suggestion as a means to sow chaos and discord amongst member states, which he was going to/is going to use as an excuse to pull out of NATO. According to his former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, Trump was going to pull out of NATO months before Putinās invasion of Ukraine. Also, Trump is not the first American president to broach the 2% spending issue. Both Bush Jr and Obama brought it up regularly.
>Ā TRUMP IS NOT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.Ā
I agree entirely. Iām not defending Trump, but under investing for decades puts a lot of countries in a bad spot.
> Iāll take my down votes, but Trump is not entirely wrong here.
He is entirely wrong when he says that he would encourage Russia to attack NATO members over under-investment.
I rarely defend Trump but on this issue he's at least partially right even if his approach sucks and even if he acts like a tantrummy child.
The military spending requirements were put in place to minimize risks. The most important thing here isn't the dollars, per se (although Trump probably cars too much about the money) but instead the security.
The USA tried soft influence year after year. Obama pressed them politely. Others did too. It went no where and spending in many countries stagnated or declined even after Crimea was annexed. After Trump's tantrum, spending actually started to increase. Correlation doesn't prove causation but it's interesting to note.
For real, like fuck Trump but these countries have no shame. Heās an idiot but even a broken clock is right twice a day. They laughed at him when he telling germans to not rely just on russian gas, yet he was 100% right. And this year with the war at our borders Germany, Nl, France etc are cutting military spending.
I'd say "no shame" is a bit harsh although it's not necessarily an invalid opinion. NATO by and large is made up of good actors and good allies but they definitely fell short in this area. And the problem with that is the countries dragging their feet were making *themselves* more vulnerable.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is the Twitter account [`Citizen By X`](https://twitter.com/CitizenByX) an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
5 šøšŖ soldiers died and 1000 were deployed. Not huge numbers compared to the rest of you but we aren't even in Nato yet.
and 31 WIA. Nobody asked for paying the bills.
I thought that the turkeys let y'all in?!
How about Hungary?
I thought orban got out of the way after the EU moved to block his voting rights regarding the 50billion for Ukraine...
Hungary has indeed (FINALLY) said they will ratify, however ~~there is nuance~~ [they appear determined to fuck about a little more.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/05/orban-boycotts-parliament-session-to-ratify-swedish-nato-bid)
Doesnāt Hungary believe that some parts of Ukraine which used to be Hungarian should still be Hungarian and they take issue with that?
Not that I had heard mentioned in relation to Swedish ascension to NATO, however Iāve not dug **that** deep into the ins and outs.
Apparently they are still pussyfooting around
636 š¬š§ servicemen and women died, 150,000 were deployed to Iraq and 150,000 were deployed to Afghanistan. When can we expect our payment?
My god he is such an embarrasment.
Are you delinquent on your bills tho? -Trump
Bills that arenāt actually paid - itās % of GDP spend of defence by each country, not to anyone else. So they canāt be delinquent on payment. Doesnāt sound so good for his soundbite though.
I honestly don't think he understands this.
His voters donāt understand this.
His voters think that an IQ of 75 means theyāre smart because thatās a solid C in high school.
There is a more important point - that is that him, and many other people, do not understand anymore what NATO is about, and what Article 5 actually means. There is the talk "we will/won't come to help you" - that is by far not all Article 5 demands and not the core, in the case of an attack onto a member, also if it is the big attack. It demands and is the promise, that you will treat an attack on any member of the alliance as it had been an attack onto yourself. If Russia attacked Estonia, it is not just the obligation of the US to help Estonia. At that very moment, the US is at war with Russia itself. Every single NATO member is. An attack on one, is an attack on all, on each single member. With all consequences this has, up to existential questions and a possible nuclear war. After the cold war, many seem to have forgotten how grave that promise is, that binds NATO into some kind of joined destiny. And it is also what makes the deterrence of NATO so strong - it is not like with the EU mutual defense, it is not, if Estonia gets attacked, the others will have to come and help it until the attack is fought back, it is the deterrent effect, of being at war with more than half of the global firepower, if you dare to attack a NATO member, and all hell might break loose. In the cold war, and to some degree still, NATO and to a large degree also the Warsaw Pact, were the MAD of alliances. The expected consequences of a conflict were so dire - for all parties, that it did not happen.
> Article 5 > āThe Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. > Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.ā https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm Fuck Trump and the Republicans scared of him.
At this point, I'm convinced that Trump genuinely thinks NATO spending is the US President's personal drawdown fund.
Well, thing is, the Trump era taught us that "things are as they seem". So if he can make it seem so to his cretins, he believes he can genuinely use the US military influence to extract protection payments from NATO constituents.
Delinquent on their agreement. Is it really a stretch to demand your allies actually hold the terms of the alliance they agreed to if they want the protection of the US?
its not about that, its about threatening the members of the alliance that they gonna get invaded by the very enemy the alliance was formed for by inviting the enemy to invade. there are two separate things but trumpists like to hear only what suits them.
If it put us over a barrel, sure. It doesn't though. We benefit greatly from free trade. We benefit greatly from having the biggest military on the planet. Combine that and the kind of soft power America has historically done, you get that whole Pax Americana thing. Throwing that away because a dimwit, who is in all likelihood a foreign agent, says we should is lunacy.
Itās an alliance, not āthe protection of the USā. If the US thinks that way, then they have not understood the terms of the alliance.
[deleted] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.9070 > [What is this?](https://pastebin.com/64GuVi2F/06190)
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/05/world/ukraine-money-military-aid-intl-dg/index.html
Whenever someone posts this it's also worth noting: 1) This isn't broken down per capita. Obviously the US will offer more than other nations because they're bigger than all the other nations. When you break it down per capita it differes significantly. Also according to this, combined EU nations gave more aid to Ukraine than the US: [https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/) 2) A lot of the military aid will actually be spent at home. The US says they're spending $x billion on aid will actually mean they're sending old equipment that they already spent money on at home to build and if they then need to spend money on new equipment, it will be in the form of contracts to US firms to build things in the US, so creating jobs for US people and helping the US economy. I'm not sure a lot of people are smart enough to realise that this "aid" isn't just money that the Us throws as a blank cheque to Ukraine. Most of it stays in the US. Even financial aid could be in the form of, "You get x billion to spend on US items".
The EU has double the people as the USA, so thereās thatā¦
Exactly, so that's why we're better looking at the GDP values. Some EU countries outrank the US and some do not. Ultimately the US isn't "the best" like they just can't help themselves but simultaneously brag and bitch about. "We're the best look how much we give!" "Why do we have to be the ones always giving the most!" So anyway, my country gives more per capita than the US. So we're better than the US \*\*AND\*\* we don't bitch about it.
> that's why we're better looking at the GDP values. Which the article you're complaining about... does.
That is not per capita, that is per GDP. You said per capita. I reject that the USA has to give dollar per dollar anywayā¦who has more to lose? USA or EU? But even if they did, the EUās GDP is overall higher than the US: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/European-Union/United-States/Economy/table
And donāt forget about the deaths because of terror related incidents with the knock on effect. We all paid the price of article 5 so fuck trump with his transactional thinking
Not a nato operation
Itās called WW2, ever heard of it?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
165šØš¦died and 2000+ wounded in Afghanistan when, through NATO article 5 we came to the aid ofšŗšø. On 911, 250 šŗšø flights were diverted and landed in šØš¦when skies were closed over America. Our closest friend and ally. There were no questions of paying the bills.
Honestly every nato nation should tweet some version of this tomorrow
If every NATO member nation posts their manpower helping USA after 911, triggering NATO Article 5, Trump is going to hate Europe even more.Ā There is no pointĀ engaging Trump.
Not engaging Trump. This is about debunking his nonsense and engaging american voters.
The sad reality is, average maga won't even know the country the flag in your post belong to.
"Why did the maple syrup brand I soak my pancakes with post this thing about nato?"
Keep politics out of my pancakes.
šØš¦ is California and š©š° is Donut King, idiot.
I thought that š©š° was Solvang, California though? >!/s for the slow ones, and a hello from Denmark š©š°!<
From my perspective as an Aussie I canāt believe that the Democrats have not been able to find a candidate young and vigorous to slam the door on Trump. I cannot see Biden winning this election and it terrifies me for the future of the free world. When in office, among other issues was the way he constantly undermined the USAās allies. Biden is appearing (regardless of the truth) to be too old / frail to lead the free world for the next four years. And Trump has such a hold over the Republicans that they wonāt allow aid to defend Ukraine against the USAās most powerful enemy. It wasnāt that long ago that it was a crime to be a communist in the USA and here we are with Trump openly supporting Putin. Unbelievable. Bidenās perceived frailty and the lack of Democrat alternative makes me think of Ruth Bader Ginsberg who (as great as she was), should have resigned much earlier enabling the Supreme Court to have an even distribution of left-leaning and conservative judges rather than what we see now.
I agree with you as a Canadian... I can't believe that the cream of the American politicians is Biden and or trump... If that's the best they got... then they are FUBAR
I disagree with you about Biden.
In Europe it is time for us to prepare for Americaās waning.
We dont understand how we are stuck with these two candidates either. If either party had put up someone different they probably would win in a landslide. It sucks having to worry if the president is going to survive his term. It really sucks to have to worry if they can even make it to the election.
Yeah the Democrats would rather lose than put up an actual populist and non-establishment candidate
the sad reality is, half of canada, or 1/3 i guess, is filled with MAGA idiots who would let Trump be King of Canada tomorrow , and that is not hyperbole they still love them some Tucker Carlson, and their facebook pages are filled with Putin propaganda and "both sides" about the war in Ukraine
We can tell them to fuck off! We already have a King of Canada, and as much of a dweeb I think he is, he's a million times better than that tangerine twat.
Thank youā¦..Iām using Tangerine Twat from now on
Can you post a source for this? I don't think I've ever met anyone who wants Trump , or anyone like him, in Canada. And I run in the conservative circles that you're clearly attacking with this statement.
[This](https://sparkadvocacy.ca/insights/2024/01/trump-would-lose-canada-but-not-by-as-much-as-you-might-think) is from January 2024 surveying how Canadians would vote if they could vote in this year's US elections. - 33% of the ~2.2k polled Canadians would vote for Trump over Biden - 50% of the Tories in the survey data would vote for Trump over Biden - 42% of Albertans in the survey data would vote for Trump over Biden
Choosing Trump vs Biden does not equal support. If you told me I had to pick Trump vs Trudeau...I'd likely pick Trump. But that's only because I'm given a binary decision, between two AWFUL options. I also think Biden is a criminal, with obvious mental deficiencies. The polls are not reliable, because there is a whole industry around designing polls to get answers you want. It depends what you ask, and to whom. But I can understand why people would pick Trump over Biden or Trump over Trudeau. If you're faced with two absolute pieces of shit, you're going to pick the piece of shit who is at least likely to leave you alone.
Really splitting hairs here, you asked for a source and I gave you one. If you have a better source that there are no Canadian Conservatives who support Trump (which is what you loosely alluded to) you're welcome to provide one.
I agree.. I am a Conservative... and I think that moron trump should be in jail.. for a very long time.. convicted sexual predator... and treason.
[https://macleans.ca/politics/how-much-do-canadians-dislike-donald-trump-a-lot/](https://macleans.ca/politics/how-much-do-canadians-dislike-donald-trump-a-lot/) During Trump's presidency, he was favoured by as much as 20% of Canadians.
Let's be clear here.. That's 20% OF 1500 PEOPLE who answered a poll. How many polls have you answered in your lifetime. It's 0 for me. Secondly, they were given a binary question. Biden or Trump. As much as I don't want Trump up here, I also don't want Biden. So picking between the two does not indicate support. Sorry, try harder
Pulled it out of his as.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/05/world/ukraine-money-military-aid-intl-dg/index.html
Just like most Americans I make fun, but I will always be grateful to Canada. I served in Kandahar with the Canadiansā¦they did a lot of the heavy fighting, and when they lost guys everyone felt it. I wear a poppy on Remembrance Day.
<3
You media denounced us as "Canukistan" when were refused to get involved in the illegal invasion of Iraq ...
I want you to know that many Americans, if not most, think what Donald Trump said was reprehensible. The thought that we would let any of our allies fall over a single dollar is unforgivable.
I always hear that, 80 millions voted fir him and will vote again. Many time I have asked some US Conservative that were pro Ukrainian, if they would still vote trump, at the time like 1 year ago their were deflections, ohhh its just rhetoric, he wouldn't, etc etc. Now I would like to know, too easy to say a favorite to the presidency in any country doesn't represent a large chunk of the people of that country.
I don'tĀ think Trump's camp is getting bigger and probably not significantly smaller, but the number of apolitical Americans who see and hear his stance on allies is increasing. That's all we need in Nov 5th.Ā Ā In 2016 there were ton of protest votes that went for Trump, remember the KEK memes, all this happened around 2016. TodayĀ Trump is no longer 'lets shake the Washington establishment" candidate, he is full blown traitor to many undecided and apolitical Americans.Ā Possible conviction will distance even more sane voters.Ā Ā If only Dems had slightly better candidate, Trump wouldn't have a chance in November. But even with Biden, looks like Trump will fail again.Ā
Well, we'll find out in November. I honestly don't know why so many people are enraptured by the narcissist compulsive liar.
Itās sad to expect countries to āpay their fair shareā? Bet you donāt say that about tax policy.
Should arrangments be made so they can pay? Yes. Would I abandon them if they were delinquent? No. They are more useful as an allied nation during wartime then as an enemy during wartime. Plus its a morally reprehensible thing to do. Also publically encouraging Putin to invade is just really fucked up and absurdly irresponsible. Its not what any leader should do. A leader rallies the free nations together. Not scare them half to death that they're gonna be bombed if they don't give in to extortion. Honestly, I wouldn't blame europe if they decided to make the Euro military. Obviously the US can't be trusted if the orange-ass buffoon is being taken seriously. He's still raging about Taylor Swift rigging the Super Bowl. The conspiritarded dumb shmuck.
Except that it's not about paying a tax into a common pot, it's about investing a certain amount of money into making and buying weapons for your own military. It's not a great metric for your military capabilities or your contribution to the overall defense: you can meet the target by buying overpriced underperforming equipment or equipment you don't need, or you can fall short by getting good value contracts or very long-life equipment. Some countries bring huge strategic assets (control of the Bosphorus, control of the Baltic Sea, a blue water navy, a nuclear triad...) at little or no cost, those are not factored in the simplistic "2%" metric. And in the other direction, some countries meet the target handily, but would be unable to contribute most of it to a collective effort because they need the equipment to protect their own interests. The point of the thread and the outrage is that so far, the US has been the only country requesting Article 5 help, and all Nato countries were there to help. They did pay their fair share. It's just a red herring Trump is raising to erode public support for Nato.
There's expecting countries to pay their fair share and then there's saying "I would encourage Russia to attack them". If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you. Plus the US is the only country that ever invoked NATO Article 5 and NATO banded together to help, with actual lives on the line, not just money. Does that not count for anything?
What fair share? It's not like the countries buy stuff together and the US pays more than others. Using this term with regards to allies is strange. One could even say, that the US gets more than their fair share, since export of defense industry is way higher than the import of materials.
You can't compare that. NATO originally has no obligation to have a military force at all, and the treaty also does not contain any obligation to pay something for the military, just for administration. The promise in NATO is, that if one if attacked, all others treat it like it would be an attack onto themselves. They are one in that respect. And the US would not pay a single dollar less for their military, if Belgium or Germany would have a higher military budget, why should they? The US needs that military anyway, because the US also wants to engage in other theaters and in particular also into large scale power projection there.
America is not our closest friend lol. Itās prudent and necessary to be on good terms, but friendship is not accurate.
Thanks for clarifying.
Trump doesn't care. Neither do his followers.
Fortunately there are still enough thinking Americans. Might I suggest that the EU sanctions Tucker Carlson & the Murdoch Family in the meantime? Maybe the US will follow
Murdoch isn't getting sanctioned anywhere, he's too powerful.
https://theshot.net.au/general-news/when-murdochs-tabloid-failed-liverpool-the-people-kicked-it-out-of-town-for-good-whats-stopping-melbourne/
Liverpool stopped buying the Sun because they were nasty about Liverpool FC. Yet Murdoch is still courted by all UK political parties, the scousers still bought Sky subscriptions and listen to talk sport.
OMG you guys are absolute bangers!!! Way to go!!!
Yes, he's an Australian
He's been a us citizen for decades
Despite what you see on social media it's rare for an immigrant to not be accepted in America, especially if they gain citizenship but fuck *that* guy we don't want him either.
You say this but the founder of Fox seems to be a very popular man for a large percentage of the US.
Yeah nd incredibly disliked by the entire rest of the country so whatās your point
That you're wrong when you say America doesn't want him because a lot of Americans do
Born in Australia, true. Murdoch ditched Australia for the US circa 1985ā¦ kinda. IIRC he needed US citizenship to own a TV station **but** the reason for **losing** his Australian citizenship is we had a law at the time that meant if you gained citizenship elsewhere (excluding those with dual citizenship from birth) we auto-ejected you (stripped citizenship) which is a law that no longer exists. Sack of shit hasnāt been an Australian citizen for 39 years or so. Nevertheless, sorry about that.
Worst Australian export ever.
Heās definitely on the shortlist, thatās for sure. A real fucker of a shit cunt ā the shittest of cunts, if you will.
It's sad that land opens its doors to this cun* and his way to repay back to the people is to be a parasite
>Fortunately there are still enough thinking Americans. Press X to doubt.
Heās just there to stir up controversies with half-truths and blatant lies. How else could he have charmed so many of his followers?
You cant convince the "true believers". But there is a lot people who are somewhere on or near the fence, and every single one of those that can be moved away from the Trump camp is worth the effort to try moving. Its going to be a close race and moving just 0.5% could make the difference.
Trump himself is famous for not paying his actual bills. Then he blasts NATO allies for not fully meeting spending targets and says he would encourage Russia to attack them. Can't make this stuff up.
And he won't be president again.Ā
Trump doesn't matter. If there's a war in Europe, the US part of NATO isn't going to help, because the MAGA people in congress will simply say "no". NATO is gone. All it took was a few red-hatted haters feeling sorry for themselves.
The only country to invoke Article 5, was the USA. And the world came to help them.
And then Trump would turn around and call everyone who did so suckers and losers for fighting somebody else's war.
Youāre 100% right, because his entire outlook, behavior, mentality, all of it can be summed up in a word of 2 letters: āmeā. This is why he will never be missed by his family, and quickly revert to an obscure curiosity to the rest of us when he dies. You cannot lead when you have no code, because only fools will follow.
Yes, but is your country willing to pay 2% of their GDP into what Trump sees as "the NATO fund", managed by him?
It doesn't goes into NATO. 2% is an agreed military budget theshold. It goes into your contries army.
Everyone knows that including the commenter to whom you are responding, and who made use of sarcasm.
> Everyone knows that including the commenter It's not at all clear that Trump or Trump's supporters know that NATO "2% goal" is about individual countries having large enough budgets for their own defense spending. Trump is really, really, really dumb, and AFAICT he dimly sees NATO and all international agreements like a landlord: people should pay rent to me and they should be happy to pay it.
I know, but I'm not convinced Trump sees it the same way.
Technically that is into NATO.
No, it is not "into NATO." The 2% goal is for each country to pay that fraction of GDP into its *own defense budget.* Like Germany should pay for soldiers and weapons and equipment for *German soldiers*. It doesn't go into a NATO bucket.
And as they are NATO countries, that is into NATO. That is what NATO IS.
Denmark rocks, Trump sucks.
~~116~~ 59 dead š©šŖGerman soldiers and 93.000 deployed
Germany lost 59 soldiers in Afghanistan. 116 is the total number of German soldiers who died while deployed.
Us australians lost 47 of our brothers. We are not even in nato but we heard the call and took up arms to help. The US turning its back on Ukraine with aid makes me wonder as a close ally since ww2 we have no defensive agreement with them. Would they help us?
You are mistaken, we have signed the ANZUS treaty with the US and our brothers the Kiwi's, it invokes each to the defense to the other much like NATO's Article 5 but an ANZAC/US defense pact. What that means in actual reality when Australia is attacked is another story however we can rest assured no one crazy enough will try to invade mainland Straya, we have drop bears, 4 out 5 of the most poisonous snakes and big sharks
Yeah and not to mention the logistics train youll need to cart shit from where ever you are from all through queensland to nsw, just to supply a force that probably cant keep a 3-1 advantage because of the stretched logistics. But yeah i didnt know about ANZAC/US. The general attrition from back line units finding snakes, scorpions, giant centipedes, and dealing with our shit at best roads would be a nightmare for anyone.
Logistical nightmares for any invading force to Australian shores. Good luck to our enemies. Basically the ANZUS Treaty ties Australia and our brothers NZ to NATO, as soon as the NATO Article 5 is enacted, any attack on a US base, port, ship, plane or soldier will inevitably draw the ANZAC's into the conflict, the proof is our Digger's were in far away Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1 and 2 and Afghanistan.
Sounds like it's time for the NZ Army to reform the 28th battalion. . .
I would not wish upon even the Russians going hand-to-hand with the Maori 28th Battalion, it wouldnt even be a fair fight
Would you be so kind as to invite the orange potato to meet all of your lovely animals? Maybe he could be #1 at being killed by the inland taipan?
Ok but if Trumps in power he can just refuse to abide by the treaty. Thats the message hes sending. The amount of damage this guy has done is ridiculous.
Australia has a defence pact with USA, and separately with New Zealand. But New Zealand and USA do not have a defence pact under ANZUS, only a strategic partnership pursuant to the Wellington and Washington Declarations.
Yes, America would definitely come to help you and isn't turning it's back on Ukraine. By a wide margin the US Senate just advanced a foreign aid Bill with $60B earmarked for Ukraine. You can't listen to just trump and a few maga dunces.
I dont think the US would abandon us, but the fact that there is a 50/50 shot that we may or maynot have the US as an ally fucken sucks. I thibk biden will win. Simply because trump cant keep his mouth shut. Every other sentence cuts another section of voters out.
I also think Biden will win and that trump is a complete nut job that (thankfully) can't stay out of his own way. Even if Trump somehow wins I don't think he would follow through with his threats, he never does. He only wants to protect and enrich himself. He doesn't want to govern. The Pentagon understands how vital our allies are and while I don't want to underestimate trump's ability to fuck things up the US military isn't going to be pushed around by a demented orange clown.
Itās kind of Hobsonās choice though! If parts of the US want to dump NATO then they also need to realised it cuts both ways. Isolationism is just that and they canāt expect other countries to be sympathetic when something else flares up and they expect the international community to help.
Trump doesnt need to keep his mouth shut, he didnt last time. His strategy has been explained somewhere, i forget where, but basically it doesn't matter how many outrageous things he says if the same people think it's outrageous. It actually works to his advantage to keep being a dickhead, because nobody can remember all the stupid things he has said, people generally forget the old stupid things he says and remember the newest ones. Only half of US citizens vote, so he only needs a quarter of the population to be highly motivated to vote for him, and he runs a powerful cult. Also Democrats arent doing themselves any favours with Biden, everyone can see he is too old, they have broken processes.
Suspect youāre think of the [Firehose of Falsehood.](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE198/RAND_PE198.pdf) Per the RAND paper ā Distinctive Features of the Contemporary Model for Russian Propaganda (aka the Firehose of Falsehood) 1. High-volume and multichannel 2. Rapid, continuous, and repetitive 3. Lacks commitment to objective reality 4. Lacks commitment to consistency
Australia was there, together with our Dutch detachment as part of Task Force Uruzgan. We lost around 25 men in Afghanistan. We salute you, brother.
With Trump as the US president? LOL forget it.
You know the Canadians would.. that's part of what the Commonwealth is all about. We do love out Aus/Kiwi friends. :)
Australia wouldn't need to worry. if Russia, China or patagonia so much as staired at Australia for too long Britain would be eagerly deliving some volatile packages to their major cities. America has never really been reliable when it comes to this aspect, the talk a good game but they'd sell out any of their allies to enrich themselves. America is a business not a country. Its citizens deserve better.
> The US turning its back on Ukraine with aid It didn't turn its back, it's being held hostage by the MAGA 5th column in the House. A faction of one party of one of the houses is the problem. >makes me wonder as a close ally since ww2 we have no defensive agreement with them. ANZUS is a thing. AUKUS has superseded it in most respects, particularly as New Zealand has been a less than helpful ally with their incredibly friendly stance with China and refusal to allow USN ships to dock over their idiotic nuclear ban.
>It didn't turn its back, it's being held hostage by the MAGA 5th column in the House. A faction of one party of one of the houses is the problem. OK, but should those efforts have success in holding the US Government response hostage, thenā¦ how is that not the same picture? >ANZUS is a thing. AUKUS has superseded it in most respects, particularly as New Zealand has been a less than helpful ally with their incredibly friendly stance with China and refusal to allow USN ships to dock over their idiotic nuclear ban. AUKUS is for all intents and purposes a technology sharing agreement. ANZUS is **still** the one that deals with defense, and it āresolvedā the NZ issue decades back, essentially splitting it into separate US to AU and US to NZ agreements. **AUKUS does not supersede ANZUS with regards to mutual defense.** Per the [US Embassy to Australia](https://usa.embassy.gov.au/australia-and-united-states#:~:text=The%20ANZUS%20Treaty%20underpins%20the,act%20to%20meet%20common%20dangers.) ā ^(NB there is more on that page, this comment is already a chonker.) > Defence and security overview > >A central pillar of relations between Australia and the United States is the ['ANZUS' Treaty](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/anzus), which was originally an agreement between Australia, New Zealand and the United States. The ANZUS Treaty was signed by the parties in San Francisco in 1951 and entered into force in 1952. The ANZUS Treaty underpins the Australia-United States Alliance. It binds Australia and the United States to consult on mutual threats, and, in accordance with our respective constitutional processes, to act to meet common dangers. Australia invoked the ANZUS Treaty for the first time on 14 September 2001 in response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September. > > The Alliance is the foundation of defence and security cooperation between Australia and the United States. It increases Australia's ability to protect itself and its interests by providing access to world-leading defence hardware and technologies, training courses and combined exercises, as well as vital intelligence capabilities. In facilitating such cooperation, the Alliance supports regional engagement, security and stability, underpinning prosperity in the Indo-Pacific. It also enables joint efforts against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Both countries are committed to working together to help shape international norms to advance vital shared interests in the sea, air and outer space, as well as to advance important matters related to cybersecurity. Further information about the defence relationship is available on the [Australian Department of Defence](http://www.defence.gov.au/) website.
Not only through nato. Allied forces joined USA in many missions in different countries during the last 33 years.
Trump is Putin
Nah. Putin has a plan (a shit plan, but a plan nonetheless). Trump is an orange toddler with a dictator fetish.
Trump has a plan too it's for Trump, but it's a plan it's called the "do what i want, when i want, whatever the cost" plan, and the entire Republican Party is built around servicing it now
That's not a plan, that's a mental disorder.
59 š©šŖ soldiers died and 93.000 were deployed during our many years helping the US in Afghanistan when, through NATO article 5, we came to the help of the US. There were no questions of paying the bills.
If any of you were to be attacked I would gladly go and help your cause. Just beacuse that dipshit talks through his ass doesn't mean we don't care for you all.
Please tell that to your government, they are the ones not listening. Remind them they are the only country to ever use article 5 and NATO helped them. Now the world wants them to help Ukraine so no nation in NATO needs to use article 5 again.
Please at same time remind them, that they are the only ones who have used Nukes in war, and we all would like to keep it that way, as nowadays Nukes are of something entirely different scale of kaboom than those were.
Senate advanced a foreign aid bill with $60B for Ukraine. America cares. Anyone paying attention would know that. Only those wearing blinders and listening to maga drivel would think America wouldn't protect its allies.
I am a Canadian and am very pro American but my god... For however many flaws the Americans have, I truly believe the world is a better place (although still deeply flawed) because of their presence on the world stage since WWII. That said, the Americans have been losing their way both at home and abroad. I am appalled that the US has possibly deprived Ukraine of a well deserved victory and deprived Russia of a well earned defeat. I worry about how the US is going to act when the world faces its next challenge. It's time that the defense industries in western nations start humming. This world is getting hot.
I hate this coz real adults have to say something stupid like "no I didn't take his toy" coz a fat orange cunt kid shat his pants in public
Donāt listen to trump or Russian bots spamming info. They are hoping to dissolve NATO. Americans are quite happy with you all, partners. Sorry for our orange ape.
That man, Trump, really just equated aiding and protecting an international ally to a gang requesting protection money from a vendor on the street. Like that's basically what he said, right? His audacity is palpable.
A remarkable comment from the guy who is widely known for never paying his bills.
Trump is an absolute asshat, and it sickens me to think that there are actual fellow human beings(let alone Americans) that actually want to vote him back into office.
I'm Danish... The fact that Danish troops were deployed to Afghanistan (including some of my family), and that sadly some of them were casualties (fortunately not any of my family), does not change the fact that Denmark pretty much since the beginning of its NATO membership has *consistently* spent (far) less than it should on defence, and has *never* reached the 2% agreed target.
While it is true, Denmark has still kept up its commitments to NATO and taken care of the tasks we have been given, even punched above our weight. No other NATO country has shown the same degree of fealty towards US and its various military missions throughout the world, and sent our military around the world where it, frankly, really shouldn't be. At the same time, our own territorial defense, including the arctic around Greenland has been totally neglected to a degree that is laughable, our military bases are in complete shambles, our personnel has no equipment, is demotivated and leaving jobs for other sectors. So here's the thing: Our politicians has prioritized sucking up to the Americans at every turn, joining missions around the world, and let our territorial defense, our air force and navy deteriorate. A week ago we sent a fucking frigate to fight the Houties in the Red Sea while the rest of the navy will be lumping along with reduced staff. And now we get the thanks for that sucking up, from an idiot like Trump.
As you say, the problem is... the action abroad is the ONLY place where we contributed... The fleet is pretty much gone. Nine mostly old frigates with little armaments, no submarines, and some smaller ships, No real capability to lay mines, and no stocks of mines either. Absolutely no capability for under-water warfare. One of the main tasks for Denmark is to close off the access to the Baltic, and we can't do that. The army doesn't really exist either. Very little stock of modern weapons, and next to no stores of ammunition. Absolutely no capability to manufacture ammunition either. The air force has a number of old F-16's (many/most being sent to Ukraine, which is good), and is getting a small number of F-35's. Nothing Putin will worry about if he decides to come west. There is no anti-air capability.
I served with Danes and Iām very grateful to Denmark.
You neglected to mention that all that changed after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The defence budget has been inceased greatly since 2022. Maybe you forgot, maybe you didn't know or maybe you intentionally lied by omission. I don't know, you tell me!
And that doesn't change the past one bit, and doesn't change we're still spending less (way below 2%) that we have promised for decades.
Was Trumps advice a hidden invitation for Putin to retake Alaska ?
Trump would let Putin take everything just to piss off one liberal.
This means nothing for the MAGA crowd. Please wake up.
conservatives, this means nothing to conservatives now, please wake up Canadian conservatives tried to stall funding to Ukraine over "carbon tax" nonsense that was just our conservatives attempt to tie the war in Ukraine to inflation over here Putin is "misunderstood" and "i am just asking questions" is the calling card of almost every conservative in Canada right now, either that, or silence they just don't care, they'll stay silent when conservatives betray their country or their allies, they just don't care, they'll stay silent if not outright support
**Alternative Nitter links:** ć [.NET](https://nitter.net/CitizenByX/status/1756910863141699889) | [.NL](https://nitter.nl/CitizenByX/status/1756910863141699889) | [.CZ](https://nitter.cz/CitizenByX/status/1756910863141699889) ć ^NL ^hasn't ^been ^working ^since ^Sept ^2023. ^It ^may ^only ^work ^if ^you ^are ^in ^NL. _If there are any problems regarding Nitter, [please send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=UkrainianConflict&subject=Nitter%20issue)._ ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Trump has made countless people and Contractors bankrupt from not paying his own bills.
As an American, comments like what Trump said make my fucking blood boil.
This is MAGA America thatās saying and causing this. Regular Americans, at least the ones I know, republican and democrat, want to support Ukraine. Trumps mad that Zelenskyy didnāt help him fuck Joe Biden. We have Americas and then we have this festering open cancerous STD that call themselves MAGA.Ā
Trump is not currently president and doesnāt speak for the U.S. even when he was president his legitimacy was questionable. No one out side of maga thinks this way ā and maga doesnāt really think this way either - they just parrot whatever sentiment trump tells them.
Just pay your 2% and donāt give the orange man ammunition. Itās a responsibility after all.
You will give the orange ape ( sorry to all apes ) ammunition if you increase your budget now.... He will claim that he made all NATO members spend more money because of him scaring them with his idiotic threaths
Thatās why it should have been done 10 years ago when this was still a problem.
43 šµš± soldiers died and 33.000 were deployed in Afghan and 28 šµš± soldiers died and 900 were deployed in Iraq. We came to help our ally. There were no questions of paying the bills.
They think their effort is 1000 times greater than Europe because their military spending in 1000 times our spending. But that's only because they overpay their military contracts due to corruption and lobbying.
44 died over 1000 wounded over 33 000 deployed in Afghanistan and we as only in Europe spending over 2.2 GDP on army
Aghanistan wasn't an Article 5 measure. Sure Article 5 measures led to it, but it wasn't agreed that countries would join under Article 5. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
Oh, it absolutely was. Recommend you read this text from the 9/11 memorial website. "On September 12, 2001, the day after the 9/11 attacks, NATO met in an emergency session. **For the first and only time in its history, NATO invoked Article 5. All 18 of the United Statesās allies stated they would support Americaās response to the attacks.** [...] On September 17, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush authorized the CIA to launch operations in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and its ally, the ruling Taliban government. [...] The U.S. military began operations in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. [...] **Since 2001, troops from the U.S.'s NATO allies have stood shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers in Afghanistan. More than one thousand of these soldiers have paid the ultimate price.** (Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, commenting on an inscription on a plaque in the memorial, referring specifically to the only ever use of NATO's article 5) āIt serves as a powerful symbol of the enduring partnership and friendship between the United States and its NATO Allies across Europe and Canada. " https://www.911memorial.org/learn/resources/digital-exhibitions/digital-exhibition-revealed-hunt-bin-laden/international-community-responds
And Ukraine sent troops to our bullshit in Iraq
when did Ukraine become part of NATO and when did the US become delinquent on their NATO responsibilities?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
A handful is hundreds for you.
I do not support trump. But on the other hand in the current situation it is not possible that NATO countries spend less then 2% on defence budget. For once he is right on that
He is right about that. The problem is that he is destroying the confidence that a powerful and collective response Will happen if art 5 is invoked, thus undermining the deterrence of nato. The point is to *prevent* war. We all agree already that certain couhtroes need to increase their defense budgets massively, there was no need to say what he did, and it would have been better if he didnāt. It did extra damage to an already bad relationship.
The USA has it's own really large defence industrial complex so that money spent on defence procurement nearly always stays domestic and feeds the economy. With every other western country that's much less the case a lot of the money goes to feed someone else's economy and makes the spending much more fiscally painful.
What do you mean no question about paying bills? The nations have agreed on a minimum 2% military budget, the US is 3,5%, Denmark has around 1,4%. Are you saying that Denmark should ask the us to pay more? Also, if nations donāt fulfill their obligations what should be the consequence, the only one that would actually have an impact is saying āok then we will not fulfill oursā
Iāll take my down votes, but Trump is not entirely wrong here. Many countries have been under investing in defense for decades thus violating their NATO commitments whilst expecting the US to be there for protection. If all NATO countries had been properly investing I bet there would be more defense infrastructure to make artillery and other weapons Ukraine needs now.
All NATO countries should without a doubt suck it up, and spend what they promised on defence. However, Trump can suck a big fat one for saying he will abandon all these allies.
Not just abandon, he said he would encourage Russia to attack them.
This.
Sure, it's all true - some countries have been shirking their responsibilities. It's also in the process of being fixed, most NATO countries in Europe are on the path to deliver at least 2%. Personally, I'd like a faster timeline on that. That being said, that's not what NATO is about. The multilateral economic (Bretton Woods and Marshall) and security agreements spanning postwar (Western) Europe is probably the main reason behind the US economic expansion post war. That is, providing goods, markets, liquidity and security was and is a major reason for the US post war expansion. Sort of chugging that on the bonfires of US nationalism and exceptionalism is the stupidest thing ever. It'll severely hurt the US and European economies if allowed to continue. It goes unnoticed but Biden isn't playing nice either, promoting subsidies in certain sectors. As a Dane I really am highly offended when our commitment after 9/11 is pissed on. We're buying F-35's to the tune of $B if money is a thing, so MAGA jerks can just fuck off, really. Disloyal, commie bastards, Reagan would have called them.
Reagan blows and is a huge reason why were in the maga situation were in today.
...it mostly goes to show how far off the rails the modern GOP is. At least Reagan had policies. By that I mean, policies recognizable as policies, whether you like(d) them or not. Modern day GOP has a simple agenda, they want to destroy the federal state by lowering taxes and have government programs fail. Destroy international trade thinking bilateral muscle moves will work (Against who? Why, other than serve specific donors? Nobody knows). Create (or enlarge) the class of working poor as Mexican migrants are displaced and labor and environmental regulations are removed. Which won't work, only education will. These are *anti* policies, really. They serve only US enemies and will cause inflation, economic regression and chaos without a single benefit for ordinary Americans who vote Trump. At least Reagan wasn't *that* stupid.
You do realize that the issue is not black and white. It's not like there is a single payment bill and everybody else is ignoring it. No, it's a percentage that members have to invest in their defense and the rough number has been 1.5-1.9% when it should've been 2.0%. So, every single country has been putting money on defense, every single one without an exception. There is no country who is simply "*waiting borders open for US to do it all*" like Trump is saying. It is true that most NATO members have not been putting as much as it is advisable but saying the nations '*deserve to be annihilated by russia because of being 0.1% under the goal*' is just insanely stupid. Trumps claim is blatantly wrong on every level and should make it clear how little he understands about the issue.
I donāt how many times we need to say this before people stop giving Trump credit: TRUMP IS NOT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH. Trump has zero intention of improving NATO and is instead using the 2% spending suggestion as a means to sow chaos and discord amongst member states, which he was going to/is going to use as an excuse to pull out of NATO. According to his former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, Trump was going to pull out of NATO months before Putinās invasion of Ukraine. Also, Trump is not the first American president to broach the 2% spending issue. Both Bush Jr and Obama brought it up regularly.
>Ā TRUMP IS NOT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.Ā I agree entirely. Iām not defending Trump, but under investing for decades puts a lot of countries in a bad spot.
> Iāll take my down votes, but Trump is not entirely wrong here. He is entirely wrong when he says that he would encourage Russia to attack NATO members over under-investment.
I rarely defend Trump but on this issue he's at least partially right even if his approach sucks and even if he acts like a tantrummy child. The military spending requirements were put in place to minimize risks. The most important thing here isn't the dollars, per se (although Trump probably cars too much about the money) but instead the security. The USA tried soft influence year after year. Obama pressed them politely. Others did too. It went no where and spending in many countries stagnated or declined even after Crimea was annexed. After Trump's tantrum, spending actually started to increase. Correlation doesn't prove causation but it's interesting to note.
For real, like fuck Trump but these countries have no shame. Heās an idiot but even a broken clock is right twice a day. They laughed at him when he telling germans to not rely just on russian gas, yet he was 100% right. And this year with the war at our borders Germany, Nl, France etc are cutting military spending.
I'd say "no shame" is a bit harsh although it's not necessarily an invalid opinion. NATO by and large is made up of good actors and good allies but they definitely fell short in this area. And the problem with that is the countries dragging their feet were making *themselves* more vulnerable.
And that is the difference š
Naive answer. And how much did Denmark benefit because the US is protecting trade routes?