NATO Summit 2018

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[DixonHur 11227]

So how long before Trump threatens to pull the US out of NATO because "we're being taken advantage of" by the other members?

I'm thinking within a week.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

So how long before Trump threatens to pull the US out of NATO because "we're being taken advantage of" by the other members?

I'm thinking within a week.

Didn't he already do that a year ago? Hes gonna walk out on the summit, leaving Germany, France, and the UK to make decisions without us.  Then we will stick with their decisions while bitching about it. 

[longhorndude 146]

I’m sure he’ll float the idea of the USSR being granted admission.

[Cacti 191]

I have no idea what Trump is going to do; I doubt he does. But what decisions will NATO make that leave us on the sidelines? Without us and our financial and military largesse, NATO is largely symbolic. Most of our allies made the decision years ago to let us carry the burden for their collective security, thus freeing funds for generous social programs and building their industrial base. Consequently, most of NATO members—especially Germany, the de facto leader of Europe—are in no position to defend themselves, much less contribute to the overall defense of the alliance.

This LA Times article, Broken fighter jets, grounded helicopters and idled tanks: Germany's military is ailing, paints a bleak picture of Germany’s military readiness and capabilities, and I think the same could be said for the majority of NATO countries, with England being the exception.

Merkel recently said: “the times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out, and so we Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands.”

We know Trump is full of it; I suspect Merkel is too. Let's see if she makes tangible proposals to back up her go-it-alone rhetoric.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

15 minutes ago, Cacti said:

I have no idea what Trump is going to do; I doubt he does. But what decisions will NATO make that leave us on the sidelines? Without us and our financial and military largesse, NATO is largely symbolic. Most of our allies made the decision years ago to let us carry the burden for their collective security, thus freeing funds for generous social programs and building their industrial base. Consequently, most of NATO members—especially Germany, the de facto leader of Europe—are in no position to defend themselves, much less contribute to the overall defense of the alliance.

This LA Times article, Broken fighter jets, grounded helicopters and idled tanks: Germany's military is ailing, paints a bleak picture of Germany’s military readiness and capabilities, and I think the same could be said for the majority of NATO countries, with England being the exception.

Merkel recently said: “the times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out, and so we Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands.”

We know Trump is full of it; I suspect Merkel is too. Let's see if she makes tangible proposals to back up her go-it-alone rhetoric.

NATO also has the UK and France which have better readiness and nukes.  They also have Turkey, but I'm not counting them because they wouldn't really dive in against Russia if Russia started driving West.

The real issue with NATO is that even with us in it, its a paper tiger.  Russia could move into the Baltics, all of which are NATO members, and the West, including us, would balk at defending them.  It was always really about defending Western Europe.  The rest is entirely for show whether it be fighting overmatched opponents after 911, or pretending that we are going to defend former Warsaw Pact countries against Russian invasion.  The only way the Baltics could really protect themselves is if we gave them the keys to a nuke that they could launch at Moscow if their sovereignty is invaded.  That isn't going to happen either.

Really, we should have set a timeline for the dissolution of NATO when the Soviet Union fell, and helped EU countries evolve their NATO forces into a combined EU force.  I think the EU countries should do this unilaterally anyway.  Especially given our new anti-EU stance.  Even though we will likely change our minds on that in 2020, we shouldn't be trusted to defend anyone.  We are currently a far bigger threat to European integration than Russia is.

[Shady Ray 1633]

On 7/2/2018 at 12:04 PM, FondrenRoad said:

NATO also has the UK and France which have better readiness and nukes.  They also have Turkey, but I'm not counting them because they wouldn't really dive in against Russia if Russia started driving West.

The real issue with NATO is that even with us in it, its a paper tiger.  Russia could move into the Baltics, all of which are NATO members, and the West, including us, would balk at defending them.  It was always really about defending Western Europe.  The rest is entirely for show whether it be fighting overmatched opponents after 911, or pretending that we are going to defend former Warsaw Pact countries against Russian invasion.  The only way the Baltics could really protect themselves is if we gave them the keys to a nuke that they could launch at Moscow if their sovereignty is invaded.  That isn't going to happen either.

Really, we should have set a timeline for the dissolution of NATO when the Soviet Union fell, and helped EU countries evolve their NATO forces into a combined EU force.  I think the EU countries should do this unilaterally anyway.  Especially given our new anti-EU stance.  Even though we will likely change our minds on that in 2020, we shouldn't be trusted to defend anyone.  We are currently a far bigger threat to European integration than Russia is.

This.

 

And if the alliance doesn't come apart from external pressures in the Baltics, just wait until NATO's hyper-expansionism into the Balkans fully plays out and it ruptures internally right down the Western side of the peninsula. Ultimately, the EU and NATO are no longer tied together by common objectives for the region, and that is untenable moving forward when mutual defense obligations contradict EU expansion objectives.

 

And there are endless possibilities for mutual defense contradictions if every country down there is guaranteed protection from attack through Article 5. Just as an example, take the good and righteous government in Albania. Sure, ever-wise John McCain and peace-loving Lindsey Graham never tire of speaking of the wonderful and freedom-loving people of Albania, but the population of every NATO member country in the EU is fully aware that Albania is a fully corrupt narco-state enabled by Washington, run by gangsters in Tirana, and increasingly full of ISIS sympathizers out in the poorer rural areas. And if Albania is Michael Corleone, it's client-quasi-state next door, Kosovo, is Sonny: Far less intelligent and far more out of control. And NATO is in bed with those maniacs and the EU populace is well aware of it.

 

So, since NATO membership is essentially viewed by those countries as a required stepping stone to the EU and nothing more, the closure of the path to the EU's free movement and free money will make NATO far less important to the citizenry. The EU is going to let Serbia in at some point given how many accession chapters the Serbs have already completed. There will be pressure for Bosnia to eventually accompany, but Bosnia is a volatile dump without much going for it and is still a powder keg. If Serbian admission happens, the repeated delays by Brussels, year after year, to even consider many of the newer NATO additions like Albania and Macedonia for admission is going to end up causing some volatile electorate down there to get more irrational than they already are. Along will come some irredentist asshole like the current ones in Edi "Greater Albania' Rama or Bush/Clinton's Favorite Drug Lord/Human Organ Trafficker, Hashim Thaci in Pristina, whose key to unlocking more and more power is to get more and more ethno-nationalist and aggressive towards some neighbor that they have hated for centuries. Because the Balkans are gonna Balkan and NATO isn't nearly big enough of a carrot anymore to change that instinct.

 

Eventually, NATO membership becomes much less valuable when no one really takes it seriously, which is what is happening when the locals are "in the know" about how exaggerated the Russian threat truly is. Which they very well do. Those people down there don't see NATO as a protector from The Bear. They see NATO much more for what it did for Bosnia and Kosovo and they want a bodyguard to protect, both from their aggressors, as well as from retaliation when it misbehaves.

 

Despite our preference for nice, clean Good vs. Evil war propaganda, in the Western Balkans, it's just a bunch of Darth Vaders with zero loyalty to "Western Values". Stupid to commit to protecting all of them from one another, but in true fashion, that's what we are doing. Won't last.

[blackmarketbaby 118]

53 minutes ago, Shady Ray said:

This.

 

And if the alliance doesn't come apart from external pressures in the Baltics, just wait until NATO's hyper-expansionism into the Balkans fully plays out and it ruptures internally right down the Western side of the peninsula. Ultimately, the EU and NATO are no longer tied together by common objectives for the region, and that is untenable moving forward when mutual defense obligations contradict EU expansion objectives.

 

And there are endless possibilities for mutual defense contradictions if every country down there is guaranteed protection from attack through Article 5. Just as an example, take the good and righteous government in Albania. Sure, ever-wise John McCain and peace-loving Lindsey Graham never tire of speaking of the wonderful and freedom-loving people of Albania, but the population of every NATO member country in the EU is fully aware that Albania is a fully corrupt narco-state enabled by Washington, run by gangsters in Tirana, and increasingly full of ISIS sympathizers out in the poorer rural areas. And if Albania is Michael Corleone, it's client-quasi-state next door, Kosovo, is Sonny: Far less intelligent and far more out of control. And NATO is in bed with those maniacs and the EU populace is well aware of it.

 

So, since NATO membership is essentially viewed by those countries as a required stepping stone to the EU and nothing more, the closure of the path to the EU's free movement and free money will make NATO far less important to the citizenry. The EU is going to let Serbia in at some point given how many accession chapters the Serbs have already completed. There will be pressure for Bosnia to eventually accompany, but Bosnia is a volatile dump without much going for it and is still a powder keg. If Serbian admission happens, the repeated delays by Brussels, year after year, to even consider many of the newer NATO additions like Albania and Macedonia for admission is going to end up causing some volatile electorate down there to get more irrational than they already are. Along will come some irredentist asshole like the current ones in Edi "Greater Albania' Rama or Bush/Clinton's Favorite Drug Lord/Human Organ Trafficker, Hashim Thaci in Pristina, whose key to unlocking more and more power is to get more and more ethno-nationalist and aggressive towards some neighbor that they have hated for centuries. Because the Balkans are gonna Balkan and NATO isn't nearly big enough of a carrot anymore to change that instinct.

 

Eventually, NATO membership becomes much less valuable when no one really takes it seriously, which is what is happening when the locals are "in the know" about how exaggerated the Russian threat truly is. Which they very well do. Those people down there don't see NATO as a protector from The Bear. They see NATO much more for what it did for Bosnia and Kosovo and they want a bodyguard to protect, both from their aggressors, as well as from retaliation when it misbehaves.

 

Despite our preference for nice, clean Good vs. Evil war propaganda, in the Western Balkans, it's just a bunch of Darth Vaders with zero loyalty to "Western Values". Stupid to commit to protecting all of them from one another, but in true fashion, that's what we are doing. Won't last.

So Hugo is Vader?

[Shady Ray 1633]

7 hours ago, blackmarketbaby said:

So Hugo is Vader?

Vader made Yugo.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

BERLIN — NATO must focus on setting up a presence at the alliance’s Eastern flank to defend itself from potential Russian aggression, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said.

Her remarks, ahead of a summit of NATO leaders in Brussels next week, will be seen as a strong reaffirmation of the military alliance’s relevance and a statement from Europe’s most powerful leader of what she sees as its future direction. There are fears that U.S. President Donald Trump, who will attend the summit and has in the past referred to it as “obsolete“, will next week seek to undermine NATO further.

“The challenges for NATO have changed drastically in recent years,” Merkel said in a video statement published Saturday, adding that after Moscow’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula and its military activities in Eastern Ukraine it is important “to focus more on defending the alliance.”

“To do that we [must] make necessary arrangements, for example through a presence in central and Eastern European countries,” she said.

Following the meeting, Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are due to meet in Helsinki, Finland, on July 16, and there are fears that Trump might take actions that are not coordinated with NATO.

“Of course, we want to have a responsible relationship with Russia,” Merkel said in the statement, adding “that’s the reason why we will continue to have talks in the NATO-Russia Council.”

At the same time though, the alliance “has to show determination to protect us,” she said.

In Brussels, Trump is widely expected to repeat his previous criticism directed at other countries, including Germany, about what he perceives as insufficient spending on defense.

Germany is currently spending 1.24 percent of its economic output on its military and will bring this up to 1.31 percent next year.

Although Europe’s richest country has boosted its military spending for four years in a row, its overall expenditure still remains far below a target formulated by all NATO members during a 2014 meeting in Wales, where they agreed to bring spending up to 2 percent of GDP within ten years.

Earlier this week, Merkel and her Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said they were committed to bringing up German military spending to 1.5 percent of GDP by 2024 and to reaching the 2 percent goal at a later date.

In Saturday’s video statement, Merkel mentioned the Wales summit pledge but did not say when Germany would reach the target.

[Cacti 191]

Quote

NATO must focus on setting up a presence at the alliance’s Eastern flank to defend itself from potential Russian aggression, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said.

 

Evidently she means someone other than Germany will defend the Eastern flank.

Germany's Air Force Is Dying a Slow Death
 

Quote

 

The German magazine Spiegel recently revealed that most of the Luftwaffe’s—the modern German air force’s—128 Eurofighter Typhoons are not flightworthy.

In fact, only about ten of the aircraft are ready for operations, Spiegel said. This raises doubts about Germany’s ability to meet its NATO defense commitments.

The Luftwaffe counts all Eurofighter jets that are allowed to fly as available. But this includes many who do not have a functioning self-protection system. These may be used with dummies on the wings for training flights or maneuvers. Real missions, such as airspace surveillance on the eastern edge of NATO, are excluded with these jets.

 

If Germany won't meet their financial obligations and if they won't--or can't--maintain their military readiness, then NATO should be as worried about Merkel as they are about Trump. 

[Tuco 5076]

The defense spending aspects of NATO are trivial compared to the diplomatic aspects. Russia spends less than 70b on defense. The US is around 800b. We aren’t pacing our defense spending against Russia. Germany spends around 40b, which, as a part of a multinational alliance against Russia, is plenty. Russia, as a military threat, is nukes. They aren’t going to invade and conquer anything outside of borders of the former USSR. The talk of NATO spending has more to do with selling military equipment than a real concern with defense. But NATO is critical for containing Russia diplomatically.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

The NATO money shit is so trivial in the grand scheme of things and Trump is going about the issue in the most undiplomatic and offensive way possible.  

He beclowns himself yet again.

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[David Dennison 18660]

Angela Merkel is trolling the shit out of Donald Trump.

[Cacti 191]

2 hours ago, Tuco said:

Germany spends around 40b, which, as a part of a multinational alliance against Russia, is plenty.

That’s a subjective assessment and it ignores the fact that Merkel is failing to meet spending goals she agreed to. But even if 40b “is plenty”, Germany’s military readiness is such that it is not currently capable of fulfilling its NATO obligations.

2 hours ago, Tuco said:

 But NATO is critical for containing Russia diplomatically.

As far as NATO members being apprehensive about what Trump will or will not do…well, they should be apprehensive. But he’s not the only NATO leader who is stressing the alliance: Merkel and Putin are in agreement (diplomacy in action) about building the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline directly from Russia to Germany, a project vehemently opposed by fellow NATO members Estonia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Lithuania and Croatia, as well as the United States.

Trump’s unpredictable, WWE style of diplomacy will not at all be helpful in calming the fears of NATO in the upcoming summit, but by her actions and inactions Merkel is doing her fair share in stressing the coalition.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Nord Stream 2 is shit.

What is Merkel supposed to do?

[Tuco 5076]

17 hours ago, Cacti said:

That’s a subjective assessment and it ignores the fact that Merkel is failing to meet spending goals she agreed to. But even if 40b “is plenty”, Germany’s military readiness is such that it is not currently capable of fulfilling its NATO obligations.

As far as NATO members being apprehensive about what Trump will or will not do…well, they should be apprehensive. But he’s not the only NATO leader who is stressing the alliance: Merkel and Putin are in agreement (diplomacy in action) about building the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline directly from Russia to Germany, a project vehemently opposed by fellow NATO members Estonia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Lithuania and Croatia, as well as the United States.

Trump’s unpredictable, WWE style of diplomacy will not at all be helpful in calming the fears of NATO in the upcoming summit, but by her actions and inactions Merkel is doing her fair share in stressing the coalition.

Actually, it's an objective assessment.  I'm not saying how pretty their funding is or how nice it sounds, I am suggesting that it is sufficient to deter attack.  There is some quantifiable, even if unknowable, amount that is enough to deter attack.  You can disagree with my assessment, and note that it lacks evidence, but it's still an objective discussion.  But you didn't really agree or disagree with it, you simply stated it was subjective, apparently trying to make it moot.  I think in a defensive alliance if you outspend your opponent by a 2:1 margin, that should be sufficient.  In 2017, NATO outspent Russia 915b to 61b.  Whether Germany spends 40b or 60b is irrelevant.  The non-US NATO members outspent Russia 299b to 61b.  Rather than try to brush aside the issue as subjective, do you think that is enough to deter Russia from a non-nuke attack on NATO members?  Do you think it affects the US spending, one fucking dollar?

As far as Merkel, she's never been on my ballot.  I'm more concerned about the actions of the US president.  As we roll into the NATO submit, I am concerned that our President will needlessly destabilize the alliance with idiotic rhetoric.  Do you have the same concern with Merkel?

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

From @claireberlinski

 

 

Modern Europe – liberal, democratic Europe – is the United States’ creation. This story was once known to every American, but as the generation responsible for this achievement dies, so too has the knowledge ceased to be passed down casually, within families.

 

The United States built this modern order upon an architecture of specific institutions: the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the International Court of Justice, the World Economic Forum, and above all NATO and the US.

 

The global order we built is in effect an empire, but onr far more humane than European imperialism. It rests upon two beliefs, one idealistic and the other realistic: The first is the idea that certain moral values are universal and that liberal democracies best reflect and cultivate those values. The second is that in international affairs; anarchy reigns: Power is the only currency that matters.

 

Europe was designed – by the United States – to be the other half of the West. Europe’s success is a global advertisement for liberal democracy. The collapse of liberal democracy in Europe would represent the failure of these ideals -- upon which the United States also rests.

 

Neither Europe nor the US are wealthy or powerful enough, alone, to sustain and expand liberal democracy in a world growingly dominated by China, Russia, and anarchy. No European country alone, nor any of the American states alone, can now sustain the global liberal order.

 

A United Europe – and the United States – are together strong enough to sustain the liberal democratic tradition and Western values. This is precisely why the enemies of liberal democracy are trying to drive a stake through our seventy-year alliance.

 

The demilitarization and pacification of Germany was the greatest of American achievements. It made European peace and integration possible. Germany’s demilitarization ended the Franco-German rivalry that set the Continent alight and reduced it to ashes, again and again. 

 

The wars that broke out in 1939 and 1914 were iterations of the wars fought by Bismarck, Napoleon and Louis XIV—Sedan, 1870; Leipzig, 1813; Jena, 1806; Valmy, 1792; Turckheim, 1675. The 20th centuries’ were bloodier for only one reason: a massive improvement in killing capability

 

Europe's history was defined, for centuries, by unmitigated slaughter and butchery among the European peoples, a traditional only occasionally interrupted since the sack of Rome.

 

For centuries, as we discovered, Europe was the globe's leading exporter of violence, and that is precisely why our postwar foreign policy was designed to ensure our permanent military hegemony over the Continent.

 

American power put an end to centuries of the same European war, and *only* American power, as we exercised it, could have ended this conflict. We ended it by credibly guaranteeing Germany’s security under the American nuclear umbrella.

 

Postwar Europe ceased to be the world’s leading exporter of violence because it was occupied, stripped of full sovereignty, and subordinated to outside hegemons—first the US and the USSR, then the US alone. The long peace is the direct consequence of our hegemony. The benefits of this—to the US, Europe, and the world—are not just economic, though those are immense. The benefit is in the suppression of Europe's inherent security conflicts: wars were not fought, lives were not squandered.

 

European free-riding isn’t a bug, as many Americans now seem to feel—it is the central feature of our postwar security strategy.

 

How is it, then, that suddenly, we’re consumed with rage that Europe is “taking advantage” of us? How have we forgotten that this is the point of the system? We designed it this way, and did so for overwhelmingly obvious historic reasons, learnt at incalculable cost.

 

Since World War II, we have been deployed in Eurasia to ensure it cannot be dominated by a single power capable of monopolizing, and turning against us, the resources of Europe or East Asia.

 

We do this by suppressing security competition in those regions. We build our own overwhelmingly massive military assets and locate them, strategically, as a warning: You cannot win. Don't even try. By this means, we prevent local arms races before they begin.

 

Simultaneously, we say, "But there is no need to try. Your safety is guaranteed. You need not worry about this." And we regularly show, often at terrible risk to ourselves, that we mean this." This has largely kept the peace in Europe for 74 years.

 

The US underwrites European security through forward engagement and security guarantees based on deterrence. In return, its Allies accept the leading role of the US in the international system and contribute towards meeting common challenges.

 

The polite fiction that allows Europeans to save face, is that this is a partnership, rather than subordination to US hegemony is a partnership, with each party contributing according to ability.

 

The truth is that the US does, of course, pay more than its fair share, and in exchange receives more than its fair of power. The arrangement liberates Europeans and Americans alike from the most dangerous force confronting them: the Europe's ancient impulse to fratricide.

 

Americans died, suffered, and labored assiduously, for generations, to create of Europe what it had never been before: a zone of peaceful, prosperous, liberal, democracies—and the other half of the West. The rescue and reconstruction of Europe was our greatest moral and political accomplishment, towering above any other in our country’s short history. Our grandparents destroyed the most monstrous and tyrannical regimes humanity has known ....Then proved that our system of governance, or something much like it, could be built and made to work on that very soil.  This is the story of the world we know, and the story of our country, too. This is the accomplishment now under threat.

 

The world we built is the only world any American alive now knows. We take it for granted. The United States seems so mammoth, so solid, so marmoreal that it requires immense imagination to realize that nothing about our system of governance is intuitive, natural, or typical; or to recall that before we built this world, liberal democracy was a fragile and relatively untested experiment. It was our victory in the Second World War and our reconstruction of Europe and Japan that made us a global, norm-setting power----capable of defining the rules of international order, and this is what made liberal democracy a *global* aspiration—and in many places a reality. We take for granted, too, the security that comes with being a global hegemon. We *cannot imagine* what we're putting at risk.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Parliament 14138]

Europe likes us best when Germans are shelling Paris.

[atomheartbevo 89449]

Our military spending is not because we are being forced to pick up any slack.  It’s there because A) the military industrial complex lobbies the hell out of Congress and B) to keep various global markets open and stable for American business interests (who also lobby Congress).

Sure, over the decades we talked a good game about freedom and liberty, but at the end of the day, we wouldn’t be heavily involved in places like the Middle East and North Africa if there were no natural resources for us to exploit or markets wanting our goods.

[Parliament 14138]

Hot take!

[FondrenRoad 4378]

29 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Our military spending is not because we are being forced to pick up any slack.  It’s there because A) the military industrial complex lobbies the hell out of Congress and B) to keep various global markets open and stable for American business interests (who also lobby Congress).

Sure, over the decades we talked a good game about freedom and liberty, but at the end of the day, we wouldn’t be heavily involved in places like the Middle East and North Africa if there were no natural resources for us to exploit or markets wanting our goods.

For sure, we don't give a shit about freedom.  We support aligned dictators and topple unaligned democracies. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

For sure, we don't give a shit about freedom.  We support aligned dictators and topple unaligned democracies. 

What unaligned democracy have we ever toppled?  (excluding democracies that elected communists). 

There is some truth to the rest except when it comes to Europe. 

If NATO or the EU is broken up it will be a bloodbath. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Huckleberry 32703]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What unaligned democracy have we ever toppled?  (excluding democracies that elected communists). 

There is some truth to the rest except when it comes to Europe. 

If NATO or the EU is broken up it will be a bloodbath. 

Seriously, dude? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, democracies that elected communists are, you know, unaligned democracies?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Seriously, dude? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, democracies that elected communists are, you know, unaligned democracies?

Valid point.

I'm coming from the view that democracies die by electing communists, tyrants, Putin, etc.

True democracies with the institutions and free and fair elections don't fight each other often, if ever. 

 

[Tuco 5076]

On ‎7‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 10:44 PM, Cacti said:

 

Evidently she means someone other than Germany will defend the Eastern flank.

Germany's Air Force Is Dying a Slow Death

If Germany won't meet their financial obligations and if they won't--or can't--maintain their military readiness, then NATO should be as worried about Merkel as they are about Trump. 

And, just to follow up on this, while Cacti (DSA?) is making the implication that the Germans are not spending enough to maintain more than 10 fighters, the story is simply that there was a defect on one of the sensors, and that sensor is not currently available because the manufacturer has gone defunct.  From Cacti's link:

Quote

“Put simply, all Eurofighters have a sensor on the wings that detects enemy jets or attacks and warns the pilot. About half a year ago, it was discovered that the pod is no longer properly cooled. Since it is central to the self-protection system and this must be active in all operational flights, the number of operational jets drops."

In addition, “although the technicians could replace the defective pods on the wings, they needed a specific spare part to seal the cooling circuit. However, this, according to the sobering response of the industry, is currently unavailable because the manufacturer has been sold.”

 

It's also worth noting that the Typhoon is not Germany's only fighter.  Wiki shows they have 87 Tornados.  Granted, they are older.   

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20344]

So I see that Trump said that talking with Putin may be easier than talking to NATO and the UK.

Can anybody tell me what the fuck this asshole is doing and why?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

[atomheartbevo 89449]

14 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

So I see that Trump said that talking with Putin may be easier than talking to NATO and the UK.

Can anybody tell me what the fuck this asshole is doing and why?

He’s a draft dodger who shit on Vietnam POWs and a Gold Star family.

This is who the GOP wanted to represent them.

[Tuco 5076]

He's tweeting about NATO again:

Quote

Many countries in NATO, which we are expected to defend, are not only short of their current commitment of 2% (which is low), but are also delinquent for many years in payments that have not been made. Will they reimburse the U.S.?

Quote

The European Union makes it impossible for our farmers and workers and companies to do business in Europe (U.S. has a $151 Billion trade deficit), and then they want us to happily defend them through NATO, and nicely pay for it. Just doesn’t work!

What a fucking shitstain.

[Chad Fuck 17566]

And conflating security with economy/NATO with EU.  They're not all the same.  He may know that, but I doubt the rubes care.

[atomheartbevo 89449]

i don’t know who is a bigger idiot - he or his followers.

i think the other NATO members should send him a bill for 1,137 funerals.

[atomheartbevo 89449]

1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

And conflating security with economy/NATO with EU.  They're not all the same.  He may know that, but I doubt the rubes care.

He also doesn’t understand that our own personal defense is a part of that number. Our 11 or so aircraft carriers aren’t all defending NATO.  

[Tuco 5076]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

i don’t know who is a bigger idiot - he or his followers.

i think the other NATO members should send him a bill for 1,137 funerals.

Note the grammar and spelling.  This isn't something he just invented on the shitter.  At the very least, he dictated it to someone who knows how to spell.  But there is also a good chance it is the cumulative effort of the White House brain trust with Trump in the lead. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Biff Tannen 45499]

5 hours ago, Tuco said:

Note the grammar and spelling.  This isn't something he just invented on the shitter.  At the very least, he dictated it to someone who knows how to spell.  But there is also a good chance it is the cumulative effort of the White House brain trust with Trump in the lead. 

Yep.  Just the periods after U.S. told me that.

[Satchel 6908]

To hear NATO allies talk about the United States in terms of strategic patience and containment is unreal.That's how we talk about North Korea. This is a scary new world order.

[TexArcher 37519]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Holy shit, Congress got something right.  Well done.

Pulling us out of NATO would be the single most alarming thing Trump has done, and that's really saying something.

[TexArcher 37519]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by TexArcher

[Cacti 191]

On ‎7‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 8:04 AM, Tuco said:

Whether Germany spends 40b or 60b is irrelevant...

I think in a defensive alliance if you outspend your opponent by a 2:1 margin, that should be sufficient...

The non-US NATO members outspent Russia 299b to 61b. 

What does NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg have to say about the relevance of Germany’s current budget?

NATO chief: Germany must increase defense spending

Quote

 

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said Germany should be more vigilant in increasing its defense spending...

But he said he expected the country "to do even more" to meet the 2024 alliance target of 2 percent of GDP that Germany and other NATO countries agreed on during a 2014 summit. "I assume Germany will continue aiming to meet that goal," he said.

 

But enough of the back-and-forth; let’s have some fun with your numbers and see if we can come up with some semi-serious conclusions with which you can’t disagree.

If you’re right in saying “…if you outspend your opponent by a 2:1 margin, that should be sufficient”, then NATO spending would be sufficient even without the U.S. or Germany contributing a single dollar. After all, the remaining members would still outspend Russia 259b to 61b, or a margin of 4:1. And that’s well above your “sufficient” margin of 2:1.

Well crap...It appears I've made your argument for you: NATO would be fine without any German or U.S. contribution.

[GopherRock 1765]

Leaving NATO also requires 67 votes in the Senate. 

 

https://worldhistoryproject.org/1949/7/21/senate-approves-the-north-atlantic-treaty

[Bama Chick 28596]

 

Nice.

[atomheartbevo 89449]

40 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

Leaving NATO also requires 67 votes in the Senate. 

 

https://worldhistoryproject.org/1949/7/21/senate-approves-the-north-atlantic-treaty

Trump: Challenge accepted.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

[Parliament 14138]

He's right though.  Maybe not because they're sending money to Russia, but because they're giving Russia so much control.

 

ETA

And jacking them up live on TV.  Probably shouldn't do that.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Parliament

[Aqua Buddha 14521]

He's right, you know.  That is, he's right if he's serious.

On one hand, he tells us that Russia is nothing to worry about but then here he is carping about Germany buying gas from Russia.  Also, he talks about how they're not spending on defense.  This is after a huge increase in our defense budget.  Why should they pay for defense is we're going to spend astronomical sums of money?

[retread 2951]

 

[Tuco 5076]

11 hours ago, Cacti said:

What does NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg have to say about the relevance of Germany’s current budget?

NATO chief: Germany must increase defense spending

But enough of the back-and-forth; let’s have some fun with your numbers and see if we can come up with some semi-serious conclusions with which you can’t disagree.

If you’re right in saying “…if you outspend your opponent by a 2:1 margin, that should be sufficient”, then NATO spending would be sufficient even without the U.S. or Germany contributing a single dollar. After all, the remaining members would still outspend Russia 259b to 61b, or a margin of 4:1. And that’s well above your “sufficient” margin of 2:1.

Well crap...It appears I've made your argument for you: NATO would be fine without any German or U.S. contribution.

I stated that it's plenty to prevent Russia from trying to conquer NATO countries, and I stand by that.  I certainly think that the military spending, as a whole, could be reduced greatly across the board.  But, by saying "NATO would be fine without any German or US contribution" it implies that neither Germany nor the US are important to NATO, and vice versa, which is horseshit.  The alliance has critical importance for nuke deterrence, where Germany provides beneficial geography and the US holds the hammer.  NATO is also important for diplomatic strength, and the US and Germany are important to that.  And let's not forget our allies' role in Afghanistan, where they came to our support after we were attack.  The US has lost 2,412 servicemen.  Non-US coalition forces (mostly from NATO countries) have lost 1138 servicemen.  Trump's rhetoric is making us, and the world, less secure.  Germany buying more fighter planes is irrelevant except to defense contractors.