Donald Trump on Tuesday pushed NATO members to boost their defense spending to five percent of GDP, underlining his long-standing claims that they are underpaying for US protection.
“They can all afford it, but they should be at five percent not two percent,” the incoming US president told reporters.
“Europe is in for a tiny fraction of the money that we’re in,” Trump said. “We have a thing called the ocean in between us, right? Why are we in for billions and billions of dollars more money than Europe?”
Trump has long been skeptical of NATO, the cornerstone of security in Europe since World War II, and last month reiterated a familiar threat to leave the alliance if its members did not step up spending.
The transatlantic alliance’s 32 countries in 2023 set a minimum level for defense spending of two percent of gross domestic product, and Russia’s war in Ukraine has jolted NATO to strengthen its eastern flank and ramp up spending.
Trump is not the only top official to call for an increase – NATO chief Mark Rutte likewise said last month that “we are going to need a lot more than two percent.” Rutte also warned that European nations were not prepared for the threat of future war with Russia, calling on them to “turbocharge” their defense spending.
In his remarks on Tuesday, Trump claimed that President Joe Biden decided Ukraine should be able to join NATO, suggesting that this helped lead to Russia’s all-out invasion in February 2022. “Somewhere along the line, Biden said, no, they should be able to join NATO. Well, Russia has somebody right on their doorstep, and I could understand their feeling about that,” Trump said.
NATO allies in reality agreed to Ukrainian membership in 2008 – when Republican president George W. Bush was in office – while the United States and Germany have more recently backed away from allowing Kyiv to join out of fear it could drag the alliance into a war with Russia.
The conflict “should have never been started,” Trump said Tuesday, adding: “I guarantee you, if I were president, (the) war would have never happened.”
Trump does not understand a peaceful world. 2% is already a lot when most of your money is going to stuff that is actually good for the people; like healthcare, pensions, social welfare, green subsidies, you name it.
If USA is willing to oppress its victims in favor of endless money for the MIC, then why shouldn’t europe do the same? \s
Official (understated) US military spending is under $1T still. ~4% of GDP. NATO, CIA agent, head has demanded 3%, which is the private figure being negotiated. NATO asshole has demanded that social security, pensions, and healthcare be sacrificed for the 50% increase in military spending. 5% would be a 150% increase, and extra nuts.
Pre 2022, Europe was allied with Russia in terms of economic cooperation. Since then, both US and Russia have had better growth for obvious reasons of Europe submitting to US extortion and domination. Europe needs to pivot to Russia and China instead of destroying themselves to comply with US empire, and their ever expanding greed.
Huh??? Pivot to Russia???
The best I can explain it is that it’s like saying Saudi arabia should pivot to iran, fucking doesn’t make sense
Minimum 4 more years of this bloated orange shit stain. Fml.
Don’t be so optimistic. After all he did say we wouldn’t have to vote again.
Hey, don’t be so pessimistic, maybe he’ll die in office! Hoping for a Harrisonesque inauguration
Yeah, but then it’s vance, all the vitriol of trump but enough braincells to focus the hatred.
He doesn’t have the cult of personality.
The social media oligarchy has already kissed the ring. Vance will get whatever personality he needs from them.
the US’s own spending hasn’t been that high since before the fall of the wall.
They better do it. Might get invaded.
I mean, yea, he’s already threatening to annex my country so I would like to see more spending. Specifically on a sovereign nuclear deterrent.
I don’t think a nuclear deterrent will work. Too much brinkmanship. Need an army that can be used.
I have to say it’s exactly the opposite. There’s no realistic conventional deterrent we could deploy that would be more than a bump in the road. On the other hand, a couple KSS-3 subs off each coast with several nuclear tipped ballistic missiles puts tens of millions of lives and trillions of dollars of infrastructure on the table. It’s about making invasion unthinkable, not desperately fighting an asymmetrical conventional battle we’re doomed to lose.
invasion unthinkable
Only works with a thinking adversary.
