Germany Plans to Renege on Pledge to Raise Military Spending, Defying Trump
Which involvement with Syria by the Russians are you referring to when you make the statement above?
The most recent one....or way back in time like almost Fifty Years?
As you are so happy the Russians are backing Syria still today....you might read the following NYT Article and tell us which part of the relationship between Russia and Syria you are most impressed by.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/w...-and-deep.html
The most recent one....or way back in time like almost Fifty Years?
As you are so happy the Russians are backing Syria still today....you might read the following NYT Article and tell us which part of the relationship between Russia and Syria you are most impressed by.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/w...-and-deep.html
Syria shown to be a US/UK/France led coup with cash provided by Saudi's and Qatar, going back then to countrys beholding to their energy suppliers who fund their government.
Kill 3000 Americans on 9/11 and then become best buddies in Syria a decade or so later.
From your same source, it would appear the German Military Minister agrees with the US Ambassador.
You appear to enjoy a quote that you agree with but seemed to have overlooked a differing German view of the same matter....by the fellow charged with overing the military affairs of the German government.
I shall not "quote" the Military Commissioner but he does seem quite concerned about the failure of the German government to live up to its pledge of financial support to NATO.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-militar...nts/a-47972229
You appear to enjoy a quote that you agree with but seemed to have overlooked a differing German view of the same matter....by the fellow charged with overing the military affairs of the German government.
I shall not "quote" the Military Commissioner but he does seem quite concerned about the failure of the German government to live up to its pledge of financial support to NATO.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-militar...nts/a-47972229
As an aside
Germany is looking after Germanys economic interests.
(Remember when we used to have pages long threads about that in JB?)
An op/ed on the ambassador is your source document Racedo? Really?
Anyway, you seemed to have missed my question. Do you believe Putin wouldn't turn off the NG gas supply as a means to achieve political or military goals?
Anyway, you seemed to have missed my question. Do you believe Putin wouldn't turn off the NG gas supply as a means to achieve political or military goals?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r...-row-vhwhx8bq3
‘Meddling’ Trump envoy Richard Grenell angers Germans in defence row
SaveA senior German MP has called for the US ambassador to be expelled from Berlin for his “insubordinate behaviour” after an ill-tempered exchange over military spending.
Richard Grenell, 52, who was appointed by President Trump last year, faced condemnation from across the political spectrum on Tuesday for his “thuggish” and “clumsy” criticism of Germany’s defence budget, which is forecast to decline in real terms in the early 2020s.
In the latest episode of his running commentary on the perceived shortcomings of Angela Merkel’s government, the ambassador said that the cuts sent a “disturbing signal” to other Nato members. In response Wolfgang Kubicki, deputy speaker of the Bundestag, accused the US of acting like an “occupying power” and called for Mr Grenell to be declared persona non grata.
Mr Kubicki, 67, who is also the deputy leader of the liberal Free Democrat party, said that while he had no desire to defend the armed forces budget, the ambassador should be sent back to Washington “for reasons of self-respect”.
“Any American diplomat who behaves like the high commissioner of an occupying power has to learn that there are limits to our tolerance,” he said. “It is no longer tolerable for the American ambassador to repeatedly meddle in the politics of the sovereign German republic.”......
This week the ambassador renewed his criticism of Germany’s “unacceptably” low defence spending, which is due to rise from 1.3 per cent of GDP to 1.37 per cent next year before falling back to 1.25 per cent in 2023. This is significantly below the 2 per cent commitment expected from Nato members and is at odds with the chancellor’s promise to raise the level to 1.5 per cent by 2024.
Mrs Merkel, 64, issued a tacit rebuke to Mr Grenell in a speech on Tuesday. “I would like to set something straight,” she said. “What is decisive is the actual expenditures, and they are always being revised upwards.”
Carsten Schneider, an MP with the Social Democrats, Mrs Merkel’s centre-left coalition partners, said the ambassador was an “absolute diplomatic failure” whose treatment of a close ally “reminds one of the swaggering of a thug”.......
‘Meddling’ Trump envoy Richard Grenell angers Germans in defence row
SaveA senior German MP has called for the US ambassador to be expelled from Berlin for his “insubordinate behaviour” after an ill-tempered exchange over military spending.
Richard Grenell, 52, who was appointed by President Trump last year, faced condemnation from across the political spectrum on Tuesday for his “thuggish” and “clumsy” criticism of Germany’s defence budget, which is forecast to decline in real terms in the early 2020s.
In the latest episode of his running commentary on the perceived shortcomings of Angela Merkel’s government, the ambassador said that the cuts sent a “disturbing signal” to other Nato members. In response Wolfgang Kubicki, deputy speaker of the Bundestag, accused the US of acting like an “occupying power” and called for Mr Grenell to be declared persona non grata.
Mr Kubicki, 67, who is also the deputy leader of the liberal Free Democrat party, said that while he had no desire to defend the armed forces budget, the ambassador should be sent back to Washington “for reasons of self-respect”.
“Any American diplomat who behaves like the high commissioner of an occupying power has to learn that there are limits to our tolerance,” he said. “It is no longer tolerable for the American ambassador to repeatedly meddle in the politics of the sovereign German republic.”......
This week the ambassador renewed his criticism of Germany’s “unacceptably” low defence spending, which is due to rise from 1.3 per cent of GDP to 1.37 per cent next year before falling back to 1.25 per cent in 2023. This is significantly below the 2 per cent commitment expected from Nato members and is at odds with the chancellor’s promise to raise the level to 1.5 per cent by 2024.
Mrs Merkel, 64, issued a tacit rebuke to Mr Grenell in a speech on Tuesday. “I would like to set something straight,” she said. “What is decisive is the actual expenditures, and they are always being revised upwards.”
Carsten Schneider, an MP with the Social Democrats, Mrs Merkel’s centre-left coalition partners, said the ambassador was an “absolute diplomatic failure” whose treatment of a close ally “reminds one of the swaggering of a thug”.......
Kill 3000 Americans on 9/11 and then become best buddies in Syria a decade or so later.
Tell us what role the Saudi government played in the 9/11 attack will you?
I thought one of the events that triggered Bin Liner's angst with Saudi Arabia was the presence of US Troops on Islamic Holy Ground (Saudi Arabia) which was well before 9/11.
They were admittedly sanitized for the occasion by a short term conversion to Islam, so it avoided the desecration of the Muslim's most sacred place, but it does make it harder to wax indignant about a remote US presence.
Not an Op ed. Reported statement from one of the speakers of the German parliment, back up by the 2 largest parties. Claim will be its not from Merkel or opposition leader but they haven't dismissed or doing anything about the statement.
Answer is nope, not to Germany or EU because you only get to do it once and they stop buying. Germany bought $20 billion and NL bought $30 billion in Oil and Gas in 2017, assume that gets to $70 in a couple of years and thats 15-20 % of Russian exports. Germany and NL can buy elsewhere at increased cost and then not pay Russia for breach of agreement. Mutually agreed destruction of both economies
The sanctions US pushed in 2014 have cost EU circa $50 billion but noticeable US has suffered little from this as its sold little agri goods there. After a while politicians start asking why are our countrys the ones bearing the brunt of sanctions and US is ok. Obama's strategy has made some European politicians to start to view US as Frenemy rather than a Friend. I though Obama strategy dumb at the time and has proven so.
Russia not threatening anybody on Energy v statements from state dept to US Oil men. Dept of State dept policy is to destroy Russian economy by targeting Oil/Gas exports.
If you look over last 5 yrs, as a result of sanctions Russia has sold off $160 billion is US treasuries, bought huge amounts of gold, reinvested huge amounts in starting up agri production, now outstrips US in Wheat exports and its growing. Additionally its trading heavily with China etc. Look at what China has also been doing.
Biggest risk to US is not Russia or China but its $22 trillion debt. Countrys are not buying it and Interest repayments are as much as US defence spending, after a while it becomes unsustainable.
Anyway, you seemed to have missed my question. Do you believe Putin wouldn't turn off the NG gas supply as a means to achieve political or military goals?
The sanctions US pushed in 2014 have cost EU circa $50 billion but noticeable US has suffered little from this as its sold little agri goods there. After a while politicians start asking why are our countrys the ones bearing the brunt of sanctions and US is ok. Obama's strategy has made some European politicians to start to view US as Frenemy rather than a Friend. I though Obama strategy dumb at the time and has proven so.
Russia not threatening anybody on Energy v statements from state dept to US Oil men. Dept of State dept policy is to destroy Russian economy by targeting Oil/Gas exports.
If you look over last 5 yrs, as a result of sanctions Russia has sold off $160 billion is US treasuries, bought huge amounts of gold, reinvested huge amounts in starting up agri production, now outstrips US in Wheat exports and its growing. Additionally its trading heavily with China etc. Look at what China has also been doing.
Biggest risk to US is not Russia or China but its $22 trillion debt. Countrys are not buying it and Interest repayments are as much as US defence spending, after a while it becomes unsustainable.
Actually, you posted a load of bollocks, so rather than repeat it in the quote, I summed it up in one word and italicized it. That load of bollocks was not relevant to my post, as a response. I should have been more clear that I had done so. I'll try to be more clear next time.
As an aside
We are both in agreement on that, even though you forgot the apostrophe. (Remember when we used to have pages long threads about that in JB?)
We are both in agreement on that, even though you forgot the apostrophe.
(Remember when we used to have pages long threads about that in JB?)
Are you confusing a Terrorist group for a National Government somehow?
Tell us what role the Saudi government played in the 9/11 attack will you?
I thought one of the events that triggered Bin Liner's angst with Saudi Arabia was the presence of US Troops on Islamic Holy Ground (Saudi Arabia) which was well before 9/11.
Tell us what role the Saudi government played in the 9/11 attack will you?
I thought one of the events that triggered Bin Liner's angst with Saudi Arabia was the presence of US Troops on Islamic Holy Ground (Saudi Arabia) which was well before 9/11.
Afterall if we were to look at US Govt organisation like the CIA, Who its its biggest Enemy and Who is its biggest Opponent. If it does something is it officially sanctioned by the US Government or more like does US Govt even know.
Answer is nope, not to Germany or EU because you only get to do it once and they stop buying. Germany bought $20 billion and NL bought $30 billion in Oil and Gas in 2017, assume that gets to $70 in a couple of years and thats 15-20 % of Russian exports. Germany and NL can buy elsewhere at increased cost and then not pay Russia for breach of agreement. Mutually agreed destruction of both economies
Will US act in same way ?
You seem to have contradicted yourself with this one.....as you correctly identified the CIA as a US Government Organization the. you pose the following question.
Is the first "it" defined as being the CIA?
Is the second "it" defined as some hypothetical act/action/plot/scheme/operation perpetrated by the CIA?
Then logically....the CIA by your first statement IS a US government organization....therefore you have answered your own question even as you ask it.
Do you have any grasp of how the CIA gets its authorizations to conduct covert operations?
If it does something is it officially sanctioned by the US Government or more like does US Govt even know.
Is the second "it" defined as some hypothetical act/action/plot/scheme/operation perpetrated by the CIA?
Then logically....the CIA by your first statement IS a US government organization....therefore you have answered your own question even as you ask it.
Do you have any grasp of how the CIA gets its authorizations to conduct covert operations?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast,
I don't think Putin will use the distribution and sale of NG and/or oil as a weapon to achieve whatever geo-political goals he has. I am sure Putin is very astute in the study of history going back before the start of WWII in the Pacific. However, if pushed hard enough with sanctions applied by the US, it is difficult to know what Putin might do. At the moment he is losing the support of his main political base in heartland Russia. Like Trump does in the USA, Putin often visits a key factory in the heartland of Russia noted for its production of military tanks. He promised both guns (tanks) and butter (higher wages/better living conditions), but has delivered neither and the workers and surrounding towns have turned on him. It is happening in other areas of Russia as well. The problem is the result of current US imposed sanctions and not enough income to make his promises happen. Putin is under a lot of pressure to deliver on his economic improvements across all of Russia and reverse the degrading living standards or his legitimacy becomes imperiled. The sale of NG to western Europe provides some room for Putin to keep his promises to the Russian citizens. Cut the NG initiative off and one can see what happened as a result of the US 1941 De Facto Embargo happening again. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Putin would be foolish not to weaponize NG. If he can achieve his goals by coercion rather than outright use of force and associated consequences, I have every reason to believe he would.
ORAC.... that is one Man's view from the USA....voiced in a Blog...which under our system of government is protected Free Speech....well so far anyway until the Democrats have their way.
Others are quoting from sources that support one position or another and we consider what the sources have to say.....as we all should.
Not all sources are credible or are able to withstand any kind of examination to determine bias.
The question of "why" Germany is not ponying up as pledged and expected under existing agreements is probably a much more complex answer than far too many PPruners are capable of accepting based upon some of the posts we see here.
The fact is the German's seem to be falling short of their commitments and that is the situation that must be acknowledged.
The argument that they are looking out for German Interests is valid....but then when the US Government challenges that failure to live up to commitments made previously.....that is an American Interest that is being raised with the Germans by the American government.
Isn't that how Diplomacy works....negotiation and debate?
Others are quoting from sources that support one position or another and we consider what the sources have to say.....as we all should.
Not all sources are credible or are able to withstand any kind of examination to determine bias.
The question of "why" Germany is not ponying up as pledged and expected under existing agreements is probably a much more complex answer than far too many PPruners are capable of accepting based upon some of the posts we see here.
The fact is the German's seem to be falling short of their commitments and that is the situation that must be acknowledged.
The argument that they are looking out for German Interests is valid....but then when the US Government challenges that failure to live up to commitments made previously.....that is an American Interest that is being raised with the Germans by the American government.
Isn't that how Diplomacy works....negotiation and debate?
The NATO Boss Fellah endorses President Trump's actions re NATO and Member Defense Spending demands, saying NATO is stronger for that initiative.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nat...ing-is-working
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nat...ing-is-working
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, in a historic address to Congress, declared Wednesday that President Trump’s push for NATO allies to increase their defense spending has “had an impact” and made the alliance stronger.
“Allies must spend more on defense. This has been the clear message from President Trump,” he said. “And this message is having a real impact.”
“Allies must spend more on defense. This has been the clear message from President Trump,” he said. “And this message is having a real impact.”