╌>

How Trump urging Russia to invade 'delinquent' NATO members distorts how the alliance works | AP News

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  kavika  •  2 weeks ago  •  81 comments

By:   VANESSA GERA (AP News)

How Trump urging Russia to invade 'delinquent' NATO members distorts how the alliance works | AP News
Donald Trump says he once warned that he would allow Russia to do whatever it wants to NATO member nations that are "delinquent" in devoting 2% of their gross domestic product to defense.

As usual, Trump has no idea how NATO works. This article explains the 2% and the so-called delinquency that Trump is talking about. 


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Former President Donald Trump urged Russia to invade "delinquent" states in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which disturbed the head of the military alliance and allied countries. (Feb. 12)

WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Donald Trump, the front-runner in the U.S. for the Republican Party's nomination this year, says he once warned that he would allow Russia to do whatever it wants to NATO member nations that are "delinquent" in devoting 2% of their gross domestic product to defense.

Trump's comment on Saturday represented the latest instance in which the former president seemed to side with an authoritarian state over America's democratic allies. It also adds to evidence that the 77-year-old either does not understand how NATO works or is distorting the truth for political gain.

WHAT DID TRUMP SAY?


Speaking at a rally in Conway, South Carolina, Trump recalled how as president he told an unidentified NATO member that he would withhold U.S. help and "encourage" Russia to do as it wishes with allies that do not contribute enough to military spending.

READ MORE Trump wants to install new RNC leadership, including his daughter-in-law as co-chairTrump's threat to NATO allies draws little condemnation from GOP, reflecting his grip on the partyWisconsin Republicans eye surprise open congressional seat in strong GOP district

"'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'" Trump recounted saying. "'No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.'"

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg shot back with an unusually strong statement saying that Trump was threatening the security of the entire trans-Atlantic alliance.

"Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the U.S., and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk," Stoltenberg said.

President Joe Biden, who is on track toward a rematch against Trump in November, also issued a statement criticizing Trump.

"Donald Trump's admission that he intends to give Putin a green light for more war and violence, to continue his brutal assault against a free Ukraine, and to expand his aggression to the people of Poland and the Baltic States are appalling and dangerous," Biden said.

WHAT DID TRUMP GET WRONG?


NATO members don't pay to belong and don't owe the organization anything other than contributions to a largely administrative fund. Trump clearly wasn't referring to those administrative payments.

His frequent complaint during his presidency, and now, has been how much NATO countries put into their own military budgets.

U.S. presidents before him raised that concern. In fact, it was in 2014, during the Barack Obama administration, that NATO members agreed to move "toward" spending 2% of GDP on national defense by 2024. Stoltenberg also has said members needed to invest more in their militaries.

At their last summit, in Lithuania in July, NATO leaders adjusted that pledge by agreeing to spend at least 2% of GDP on their military budgets. No target date was set for meeting the goal.

The 2% is a benchmark that each member should spend on its own defense in order to be able to contribute to the joint defense of the alliance. However, the goal is voluntary, and there is no debt or "delinquency" involved.

The countries don't pay the money to NATO but invest it in their own armed forces.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine almost two years ago has given them further impetus to beef up their armies.

WHAT IS NATO?


The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded after World War II in an attempt to stop the expansion of Soviet control in Europe as the eastern part of the continent was coming under the Kremlin's firm grip.

The alliance's first secretary-general, the British Gen. Hasting Ismay, said the goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." The often repeated comment highlights how a fear of Russia's expansion has been part of the alliance's DNA from the beginning.

The collapse of the Soviet Union led some to question whether NATO still had a purpose. Russia, for its part, has observed the military alliance's eastward growth with anger. President Vladimir Putin for years has warned that Moscow views NATO's expansion into what the country views as its historical sphere of influence as a threat.

Putin tried to justify his war against Ukraine in part by citing NATO's enlargement, though Ukraine had no immediate prospects of joining the alliance when Russian troops entered the neighboring country in February 2022. However, NATO leaders have said that Ukraine will join the alliance at some point in the future.

NATO currently has 31 members. Finland became the newest member last year, breaking with decades of non-alignment after Russia invaded Ukraine. Sweden is hoping to join, too, but is still waiting for approval from Hungary, the only member that has not ratified the Scandinavian country's bid.

WHAT ELSE HAS TRUMP SAID ON THE ISSUE?


Trump has a history of misrepresenting NATO or suggesting that the United States might not honor its commitment to allies. Former national security adviser John Bolton said in a memoir that Trump was close to pulling the U.S. out of NATO in 2018.

Trump spoke that year about NATO as if it were a business going bankrupt until he came along. "I went to NATO. And NATO was essentially going out of business 'cause people weren't paying and it was going down, down, down," he said.

He also bemoaned that Americans were "the schmucks that are paying for the whole thing." U.S. defense spending, while well above 2%, has actually been decreasing for years.

While Trump's hectoring of allies to spend more on defense during his presidency might have spurred some into doing so, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been a greater catalyst in pushing them to make much larger investments.

WHEN HAS NATO COME TO AN ALLY'S DEFENSE?


On the ground, NATO has helped to keep peace in the Balkans and helped to provide security in Afghanistan after a U.S. led coalition invaded the country. The U.S. triggered NATO's common defense clause, known as Article 5, for the first and only time in the alliance's history after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack.

"Poland then sent an army brigade to Afghanistan for a decade and we did not send an invoice to Washington for it. Alliances also strengthen the United States," Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski said on Monday.

Sikorski said he if he had a chance to speak with Trump he would tell him that the North Atlantic alliance "is not a contract with a security company." But he also said he prefers to remember Trump as a president who sent Javelins and American anti-tank missiles to Ukraine even before Putin's attack on Ukraine.

Even during his presidency, Trump threatened not to come to the aid of allies who might be under attack if they had not paid their dues.

His presidency raised questions about whether the U.S. would remain committed to the West's collective defense, fears returning in anticipation of a likely rematch between him and Biden.

A defense policy bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in December includes provisions that say the president must get the advice and consent of the Senate or an act of Congress before withdrawing the U.S. as a member of NATO.


Red Box Rules

OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT WARNING.


 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Kavika     2 weeks ago

An article explaining how NATO works and it shows that Trump is either ignorant of the procedure or is lying about it.

There is an excellent graft if you click on seeded article. It shows that almost all members have been increasing their % of GDP since 2014 to 2023 with the exception of Turkey and the US. 

Turkey may change since they just purchased $23 billion worth of F 16 from the US in Jan of 2024.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Kavika @1    2 weeks ago

Both, actually.

That so many people cannot recognize that Trump is a dangerous loose cannon who should never be allowed access to the presidency is troubling.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @1.1    2 weeks ago
Both, actually.

That is certainly a strong possibility, TiG.

A loose cannon is an understatement when it comes to Trump.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @1.1    2 weeks ago

I lean more towards he really doesn't know how NATO works. He doesn't educate himself about such things. He has "people" to do that for him

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

"People" that it ignores when they don't tell it what it wants to hear.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2  Thomas    2 weeks ago

Well, hell yeh they turn off my cable if I don't pay the bill...

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
3  Gsquared    2 weeks ago

The problem is how many people believe Trump's lies, or just don't care about his lies.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4  Ronin2    2 weeks ago

Here is how the so called "Alliance" works.

The US spends an obscene amount on it's military and deploys it all over the world.

NATO countries don't dedicate their fair share to their military to provide for even their own basic self defense. They know they have the US to defend them. The US does all of the heavy lifting when it comes time to fight or provide aid; and NATO countries bitch at us about not being progressive enough at home.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the surrounding NATO countries weren't screaming for NATO troops to be deployed to protect their borders. No, it was the US that once again filled the breech. 

China is now the number 1 threat in the world. Russia's military has been degraded (using tanks taken out of moth balls, and having to by drones and munitions from China, North Korea, and Iran); it's leaders stuck in WWI tactically; and it's economy ruined. It is little more than a vassal state to China now. NATO should be able to handle Russia on it's own (if the countries in NATO were worth a damn militarily). The US needs to concentrate it's resources on deterring China and raising an Asian alliance to offset it. We don't have enough resources to spare to take care of European countries that refuse to defend themselves.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @4    2 weeks ago
The US spends an obscene amount on it's military and deploys it all over the world.

It does and that has nothing to do with NATO.

NATO countries don't dedicate their fair share to their military to provide for even their own basic self defense. They know they have the US to defend them. The US does all of the heavy lifting when it comes time to fight or provide aid; and NATO countries bitch at us about not being progressive enough at home.

Nonsense, NATO countries are pumping billions of dollars into the miliary and supporting Ukraine at the same time.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the surrounding NATO countries weren't screaming for NATO troops to be deployed to protect their borders. No, it was the US that once again filled the breech. 

More inaccurate information. NATO has deployed troops to:

NATO rapidly established four new multinational battlegroups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, in addition to the existing battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. The eight battlegroups extend all along NATO's eastern flank, from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south. Nov 6, 2023

.

China is now the number 1 threat in the world. Russia's military has been degraded (using tanks taken out of moth balls, and having to by drones and munitions from China, North Korea, and Iran); it's leaders stuck in WWI tactically; and it's economy ruined. It is little more than a vassal state to China now. NATO should be able to handle Russia on it's own (if the countries in NATO were worth a damn militarily). The US needs to concentrate it's resources on deterring China and raising an Asian alliance to offset it. We don't have enough resources to spare to take care of European countries that refuse to defend themselves.

China is a threat but they currently are in a financial downward spiril and fast heading into some very tough financial times. We have expanded our alliances in Asia over the last couple of years and are continuing that expansion currently. 

We don't have enough resources to spare to take care of European countries that refuse to defend themselves.

Sounds good but it certainly isn't accurate.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @4.1    2 weeks ago

I think somebody didn't bother to read your article....

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5  evilone    2 weeks ago

There is something to the saying you can lead, follow or get out of the way... In this case leading provides more than just military security. There is a strong political and economic component to this. It all very convoluted and difficult for average people to really understand without really doing some work.

There is another axiom that says for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. In this case not leading shrinks our economy; resulting in massive layoffs, debt default, and economic depression. A huge shift in foreign policy also means a huge shift in economic consequences. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Kavika   replied to  evilone @5    2 weeks ago
A huge shift in foreign policy also means a huge shift in economic consequences. 

Part of that would be if we removed all our troops and bases from NATO countries around 100,000 troops and numerous bases what would we do with them? Discharge them, station them in the US, send them to Mars? Various reports show that it would cost the US the same amount of money to have them stationed in the US. Presently countries that host US troops pay for that privilege. In the last ten years, Germany has paid the US over $1 billion dollars toward their support.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.1  George  replied to  Kavika @5.1    2 weeks ago

Sigh......A whole 1 billion over 10 years, Wow!!!  South Korea will spend over a billion this year alone. In 2019 the US injected 1.2 billion into the German economy just at Ramstein AFB alone, now add another billion in Bavaria. But wow, 1 billion over 10 years....

And then the fuckers wanted to tax the Americans pay, before the courts said it violate the NATO treaty.

Paying 1 billion over 10 years to receive billions of dollars injected into your economy yearly seems like a pretty good deal for the Germans. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.2  JBB  replied to  George @5.1.1    2 weeks ago

Yet, the EU has given fifty billion for Ukraine's defense which far exceeds the US contributions. In fact, it all mostly went to American arms manufacturers, thus to American workers...

.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

Do you realize how many countries make up the EU?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.4  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

Yes, and that all together the US economy dwarfs them all...

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.5  George  replied to  JBB @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
Yet, the EU has given fifty billion for Ukraine's defense which far exceeds the US contributions

Is that some sort of weird liberal math? 

The Joe Biden administration and the U.S. Congress have directed more than $75 billion in assistance to Ukraine, which includes humanitarian, financial, and military support, How Much Aid Has the U.S. Sent Ukraine? Here Are Six Charts. | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)

In the real world 75 is more than 50. [ deleted ]

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.6  evilone  replied to  Kavika @5.1    2 weeks ago
Part of that would be if we removed all our troops and bases from NATO countries around 100,000 troops and numerous bases what would we do with them?

The political cost is incalculable. What happen when the world stops trading in US currency? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.7  JBB  replied to  George @5.1.5    2 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.8  George  replied to  JBB @5.1.7    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
EU has given fifty billion for Ukraine's defense which far exceeds the US contributions.

Now break it down by country.  You'll find not a single country in the EU come close to what the US have handed over.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  JBB @5.1.7    2 weeks ago

The rest of the world can see Trump for what he is. Here it's more of a game.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.11  George  replied to  evilone @5.1.6    2 weeks ago

The EU already tried that, as did BRIC's, politics has nothing to do with it, Banks control what is the reserve currency, it is based on stability.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.12  George  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.9    2 weeks ago

The entire EU has given 50% less than the US, that post was a lie, period. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  George @5.1.12    2 weeks ago

But the left won't acknowledge that.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  evilone @5.1.6    2 weeks ago
What happen when the world stops trading in US currency? 

You have a good point. When you're the big dog, you have to act like the big dog. The United States is the world's only superpower. And with that title comes requirements. On our part. And one of them is to spendmore money than other countries do on defense. The United States has been intervening in the affairs of other countries for as long as I've been alive. We don't see Germany doing the same, we don't see France , we don't really see England. We don't see Canada, we don't see Australia, spreading their influence around the world the way the United States tries to. When there is an international alliance such as in the first Iraq War coalition, it's organized by the United States. We are the power. And with that power comes unique responsibility. If we want our currency to be the world's standard we have to pay for it.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.15  evilone  replied to  George @5.1.11    2 weeks ago
The EU already tried that...

And how long will that last when we are no longer an economic super power? If we remove ourselves from NATO and Europe, sure, Europe will start building up their militaries - there goes our weapon's manufacturing jobs (and those that rely on those workers for their work) - they won't buy from us, they will court those companies to move overseas. How much does that shrink our economy? Will they still want to trade other stuff or will they retaliate by embargo and tariffs?  Where will we make that up? China? Mexico? We'd be fucked...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.16  seeder  Kavika   replied to  George @5.1.1    2 weeks ago

Is your solution to get out of NATO and if it is what do we do with the troops that are stationed in NATO countries? Since it would cost the US the same amount of money to station them in the US, what do you suggest?

If we get out of NATO I would think that weapon systems that we sell to them would disappear as well since they do have an arms industry. The latest is $23 billion that Turkey has ordered from the US for F 16 in Jan 2024.

If we factor into what the EU and Nato countries have given in aid both short-term and long term Europe has surpassed the US.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.17  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.9    2 weeks ago

Now break it down by country.  You'll find not a single country in the EU come close to what the US have handed over.

Of course not there isn't a country in NATO or the EU that is anywhere near the size of the US or has the GDP of the US.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Kavika @5.1.17    2 weeks ago

So you are acknowledging the comment in 5.1.2 is mere fiction.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.19  seeder  Kavika   replied to  George @5.1.12    2 weeks ago
The enire EU has given 50 less than the US, that post was a lie, period.

No it wasn't a lie,

Ukraine Support Tracker: Europe clearly overtakes US, with total commitments now twice as large

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.20  JBB  replied to  George @5.1.12    2 weeks ago

Nope...

original

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.21  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.18    2 weeks ago
So you are acknowledging the comment in  5.1.2  is mere fiction. 

Not at all are you trying your usual deflection strategy? 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.22  Nerm_L  replied to  JBB @5.1.20    2 weeks ago
Nope...

Doesn't that graphic include the value of Soviet munitions and equipment provided Ukraine?  European countries had to be coaxed into giving up their Soviet junk with US giveaways.  How much of the EU contribution to Ukrainian support was actually paid for by Russia decades ago?  And why aren't the US giveaways to those European countries counted as support for Ukraine?

The only thing the first year of the Ukrainian war accomplished was to empty warehouses storing outdated Soviet weapons and munitions.  And Europe expects to get full retail credit for that?

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.23  George  replied to  JBB @5.1.20    2 weeks ago

It doesn't take a high school diploma to read what you wrote, you wrote that the EU had committed 50 billion and more than the US, more than the US had committed. the US commitment was higher than 50, so your post was absolutely a lie, you may have been wrong, with the 50 billion but that doesn't change the fact that it was a lie.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.24  JBB  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.22    2 weeks ago

The graph proves the EU and US and the rest of the free world are united against Putin's and his war of aggression in Ukraine! Which, as they say, "A Good Thing!" AMERICA!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.25  JBB  replied to  George @5.1.23    2 weeks ago

Nope...

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.26  George  replied to  JBB @5.1.25    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.27  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Kavika @5.1.21    2 weeks ago

Calling out false information is "deflection"?  OH  WAIT!!!!!  I get it.  I called out one of you that consistently posts lies and misinformation.  THAT'S why you call it deflection.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.28  Nerm_L  replied to  JBB @5.1.24    2 weeks ago
The graph proves the EU and US and the rest of the free world are united against Putin's and his war of aggression in Ukraine! Which, as they say, "A Good Thing!" AMERICA!

Doesn't that graphic prove unity has a price?  Unity is really all about the money.  That unity falls apart pretty quickly when the money stops flowing.

The rich ain't paying the tab.  But they seem to get rich from the unity.  So, who gets the dirty end of the stick?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.29  JBB  replied to  George @5.1.26    2 weeks ago

No, I just got newer info, which further illustrates my point.

The US is not carrying an inordinate cost of fighting Putin!

The EU and Britain are contributing more than the USA is...

So, why HONESTLY ^ are you saying that I am lying above?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.30  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.27    2 weeks ago
Calling out false information is "deflection"?  OH  WAIT!!!!!  I get it.  I called out one of you that consistly posts lies and misinformation.  THAT'S why you call it deflection.

So you were calling out false information, it wasn't false information as shown in the articles linked below. 

There is no use yelling since it doesn't help you make a point but it does show you have no idea what you're talking about.

Cheers 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.31  charger 383  replied to  George @5.1.23    2 weeks ago

Flag on your 5.1.23 dismissed.  It was responded to 1 minute later by member addressed.  Please check for responses before flagging.  Charger 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.32  charger 383  replied to  George @5.1.26    2 weeks ago

Flag on 5.1.24 dismissed as member addressed responded to it, Charger

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.33  seeder  Kavika   replied to  JBB @5.1.29    2 weeks ago

Instead of simply saying ''oops, I was wrong, he will play the semantics game''.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @5.1.29    2 weeks ago
 I just got newer info, which further illustrates my point.

no it doesn't. It actually proves you are wrong. [ deleted ]

e US is not carrying an inordinate cost of fighting Putin!

That wasn't your point.  [ deleted ]

Here's the graph that actually addresses your point:

256

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.35  JBB  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.32    2 weeks ago

Flagged, or not, those comments were not violations...

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.36  charger 383  replied to  JBB @5.1.35    2 weeks ago

Agreed, they were within the rules.  There are a lot of flags on things responded to ., Thank you Charger

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.37  George  replied to  George @5.1.26    2 weeks ago

Hey Perrie, he plagiarized a source without posting the link, and you ticket me for that fact he lied in his comment?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.38  JBB  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.36    2 weeks ago

No, Thank You...

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.39  George  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.31    2 weeks ago

I haven't flagged anything? why is this addressed to me?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.40  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @5.1.30    2 weeks ago

It confirms it.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.41  George  replied to  JBB @5.1.29    2 weeks ago
The EU and Britain are contributing more than the USA is...

Brittain isn't part of the EU, so now you are randomly combining countries to cover for the point that you lied in your comment?

This is from February of this year.

The majority of that support has come from the United States, whose aid is valued at 73.2 billion euros , or around $77 billion.

Meanwhile, European institutions and countries have committed a combined 54.9 billion euros in aid to Ukraine,

These Countries Have Sent the Most Aid to Ukraine | Best Countries | U.S. News (usnews.com)

And here is a interesting point, I include the source of my information, instead of stealing a chart from a website without linking to it to give it credit.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.42  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  George @5.1.37    2 weeks ago

This shouldn't be on the article but in chat, since it's meta, but I'll it go. Which comment has not reference?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.43  charger 383  replied to  George @5.1.39    2 weeks ago

I put it there to associate with the comment I dismissed the flag on. charger

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.44  George  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.42    2 weeks ago

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.45  George  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.43    2 weeks ago

And yet i still have several comments that are ticketed where the person responded BEFORE  the ticket, it's hard to keep track what the actual rules are when the goalposts keep moving when it comes to moderation..

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
5.1.46  Hallux  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.22    2 weeks ago

The graphs at Ifw are far more instructive than the one supplied by JBB, see:

and

Also Nato and other EU countries have taken in well over 6,000,000 Ukrainian refugees.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.47  seeder  Kavika   replied to  George @5.1.41    2 weeks ago

On the left bottom it's states the source.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.48  George  replied to  Hallux @5.1.46    2 weeks ago

Thank you for the links, Honest question, in you charts you have EU institutions, EU countries and one that combines them both. What is the difference between the 2? genuinely curios if you know.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.49  George  replied to  Kavika @5.1.47    2 weeks ago

And yet there is no link, period!!! so the information can't be verified. It is as worthless as the memes he posts for information value.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
5.1.50  Hallux  replied to  George @5.1.48    2 weeks ago
Honest question

Honest answer ... they're not my charts.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.51  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.42    2 weeks ago

If you look at the bottom left of the chart the source is there and it's the same source that George used in his link and that I used in my link.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.52  George  replied to  Hallux @5.1.50    2 weeks ago

Thank you, i was just curious, because in the combined link it shows EU institutions + EU countries as separate entities. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.53  seeder  Kavika   replied to  George @5.1.49    2 weeks ago

It's the same source that you used in your link and I did with my link. 

I found this interesting from your link.

While the U.S. has sent the most aid in total dollars, Ukraine’s neighbors are contributing the most on a per GDP basis.

So to confirm it, (one has to satisfy everyone) I came up with this.

Total bilateral aid commitments to Ukraine as a percentage of donor gross domestic product (GDP) between January 24, 2022 and May 31, 2023, by country

The US is number 12.
 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5.1.54  George  replied to  Kavika @5.1.53    2 weeks ago

Sigh so now we are just changing the criteria, we are going off GDP now? how about based on population? or on land mass? 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.55  seeder  Kavika   replied to  George @5.1.54    2 weeks ago

If you have been paying attention they have been going off % of GDP since the beginning when comparing countries with such diverse populations, size, and wealth it's the only way for a legit comparison.

US population 330 million vs Montenegro population 619,000. Well DUH

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.56  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @5.1.53    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 weeks ago
Donald Trump says 

So once again, the person the left has called a liar and that nothing he says can be believed, is suddenly believable.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6    2 weeks ago

You do not understand.   This article is reporting on what Trump said, not that what he said is truthful.   The article is illustrating the misguided and harmful way Trump thinks.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    2 weeks ago

I understand.  After years of chirping "he's a liar" over and over, you all suddenly think he's believable.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

Your comment illustrates utter confusion and/or a failure/refusal to read without bias.

His words are quoted to illustrate the misguided views he expresses in public.   Not that his words are taken as truth.

I understand. 

Demonstrably, you do not.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.2    2 weeks ago
Your comment illustrates utter confusion and/or a failure/refusal to read without bias.

One more time, explain to me how you not liking my answer is my problem.  Oh, and why I should care.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
6.1.4  Hallux  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.3    2 weeks ago

I bet your Mom could beat up TG's Mom too ... sheesh!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

Ah, yes, the famous neoliberal auditing tricks to support a lie.  About 10 pct of the United State's total military force size is stationed in Europe (more than 100,000 personnel).  The United States operates and maintains several hundred military installations in Europe.  The United States maintains a war reserve stockpile of munitions in Europe.  The US military has justified these ongoing expenditures as forward deployment  to act as a deterrent.  (As we've seen, that justification has been proven false.)  But the liars won't count these ongoing US military expenditures as support for NATO because that would prove their political propaganda is based upon lies.

Right now, over 10 pct of the US defense budget is expended on direct and indirect support of NATO and European defense.  Europe has not forward deployed any of its military resources to the United States as a deterrent or defense force.  The United States stands alone in its own defense while also having to defend Europe.  There has been absolutely no reciprocity in the operation of NATO.

Neoliberals lying their asses off won't change the fact that US taxpayers have been handed the dirty end of the stick in Europe.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Nerm_L @7    2 weeks ago
 Europe has not forward deployed any of its military resources to the United States as a deterrent or defense force.  The United States stands alone in its own defense while also having to defend Europe.  There has been absolutely no reciprocity in the operation of NATO.

That pretty much BS. Article 5 of the NATO agreement states that if one is attacked all others come to their aid and the only time it happened in NATO history was when NATO came to the aid of the US after 9/11 and lost over 1,000 service members and thousands more wounded in Afghanistan.

Neoliberals lying their asses off won't change the fact that US taxpayers have been handed the dirty end of the stick in Europe.

It's not the Neoliberals lying as you have so amply demonstrated.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Kavika @7.1    2 weeks ago
That pretty much BS. Article 5 of the NATO agreement states that if one is attacked all others come to their aid and the only time it happened in NATO history was when NATO came to the aid of the US after 9/11 and lost over 1,000 service members and thousands more wounded in Afghanistan.

As usual, credit is being claimed for something that ain't quite true.  Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Jordan, Georgia, and, even, Sweden and Finland weren't members of NATO.  (Yes, Sweden and Finland are trying to join now.)  And even stretching veracity to give credit to European NATO diminishes the cost in casualties by the United States.  The United States carried the bulk of the burden in Afghanistan and that was frittered away.

Even in death, the US military must take a back seat to European braggadocio.  So, who ended up with the dirty end of the stick?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.2  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.1    2 weeks ago
And even stretching veracity to give credit to European NATO diminishes the cost in casualties by the United States.
Even in death, the US military must take a back seat to European braggadocio.  So, who ended up with the dirty end of the stick?

Ignorant comments like that deserve no response. 

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
8  George    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1  Tessylo  replied to  George @8    2 weeks ago

LET IT GO!  MOVE ON!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9  seeder  Kavika     2 weeks ago

Do any of our RW commentators care to address Trump and the 2% that he calls delinquent? You know, a major part of the article.

 
 

Who is online


GregTx
Ozzwald


65 visitors