Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Some Mathematics for Banandangees; and the rest who think the US pays more to cover NATO shortfalls
Topic Started: Jun 14 2018, 03:53 AM (255 Views)
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]

33. NATO has been instrumental in securing peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area for more than 65 years. The absence of major military conflict in our countries has led many in our nations to take security for granted. Our populations are certainly right to ask ‘What do we get out of NATO? What does it cost and what security does that money buy?’ Our national governments therefore need to explain to our citizens why it is necessary to invest in defence and why NATO is crucially important for our security. However, there is also a role for parliaments. As elected representatives of the people, parliamentarians are uniquely positioned to promote greater transparency of NATO policies. Burden sharing has been an important issue on NATO’s agenda since its inception. Many of the distinctions that are explained in this report should be conveyed in a clear, easily understandable manner that is readily available to voters/citizens of NATO member states - and thereby foster informed public discussion about NATO and our common defence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Yes. I agree with NATO entirely. And we're doing exactly as we promised.

If you want more than the required number of expensive toys, feel free! I see nothing in any document that limits what you spend.
Edited by Brewster, Jun 15 2018, 06:56 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]

34. President Trump’s unorthodox approach to foreign policy, including NATO, may be a blessing in disguise. European Allies risk underestimating how important progress on this goal is to America’s view of the transatlantic relationship. If European Allies want a sustained US commitment to a strong and continuing role in transatlantic defence they need to deliver. The former director of Carnegie Europe, Jan Techau, correctly noted that the 2% target is a “flawed but indispensable” indicator of “who is and who is not politically committed to NATO’s core task: European security.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Who disagreed with the target?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]

35. The Alliance will be in trouble if a transactional world-view elevates deals over values. However, citing values without supporting them with real resources rings hollow. The bottom line is that, if not all member states are willing to contribute their fair share to the burden of the Alliance, this will generate a profound crisis that strikes at the heart of NATO’s value as a political and military alliance.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Yup.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
It doesn't look like NATO feels the same way as does Brew and Ima. So, as far as the future existence of NATO goes, who thinks what Brew and Ima feels is more credible than that of NATO itself?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Where in the NATO document is there a timetable when the 2% must be reached? Canada made a commitment, and is living up to it.

NATO asked for no more.

It's only YOU who thinks it must be done instanter.

Who thinks what Banandangees feels is more credible than that of NATO itself?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]

Apparently neither of you detected the urgency by NATO for member burden sharing. The 2% GDP has been the recommendation by NATO since the 1990s. It's nothing new. The new push to burden sharing has been brought on by Trump. NATO, in an effort to keep the alliance together has stretched the compliance date to the 2020s, but not without risk..... it recognizes (if you read their entire report) that without the U.S's continued funding and continued support, the alliance could deteriorate further and become as is the UN... toothless. Canada, the wealthy, happy nation member has no real excuse for not reaching 2% GDP without delay. Like the former director of Carnegie Europe, Jan Techau, correctly noted that the 2% target is a “flawed but indispensable” indicator of “who is and who is not politically committed to NATO’s core task: European security.” Canada, considering it's wealth, unlike Greece, Romania, Poland, could have shown more "commitment" than it has. It has little room to procrastinate. Greece and Poland have expended their 2%. Shame on Canada.... it certainly doesn't show much leadership or set much of an example.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
A Note on Canada's commitment:
Globe and Mail
 
Ottawa has unveiled a plan to boost military spending by more than $30-billion over the next decade – much of it to pay for the ballooning cost of new warships and fighter jets – while leaving the bulk of the new expenditures until after the next election.

The blueprint for defence spending includes a more assertive role in protecting Canada's sovereignty in its vast Arctic reaches.

The government wants to expand the northern zone where incursions by foreign airplanes, such as Russian military aircraft, require an interception by Canadian fighters.

The Liberals are proposing to add 5,000 regular and reserve personnel to the Canadian Armed Forces, buy a bigger-than-expected fleet of 88 new fighter jets and pay for the expanding cost of 15 warships, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced.

The plan is an unexpected pivot for the Liberal Party, which campaigned largely on social spending and infrastructure promises in the last election. The move reflects a desire to demonstrate to the United States and to the world that Canada is making a bigger commitment to defence expenditures.

Another piece I read pointed out that even if we wanted to expand faster, there's no manufacturer we deal with that could supply a request for so much new, high tech equipment at such a rate. We'd end up buying second rate or second hand equipment which would have to soon be replaced - we'd be throwing good money after bad.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis