Germany Plans to Renege on Pledge to Raise Military Spending, Defying Trump
 

In the WSJ - Germany plans to renege on pledge to raise military spending.

From the article:-

How is a country reneging on something when it takes its own sovreign decisions.

Germany plans not to raise military spending - "You can't trust those Germans!"

Germany plans to raise military spending - "You can't trust those Germans!"

A commitment need not always be fiscal, West Coast. The Germans and everyone else responded the only time Article 5 has ever been invoked.

Could we say the US would do the same today?

Just the words of your president and the right-wing of your political class (the wing that used to oppose Russia, ironically).

And in terms of responding to Article 5, there absolutely is equivalency I'm afraid - that's the entire point of it. 'One for all, and all for one' in every circumstance.

It is not Russia that is demanding German consumers should pay billions more for their energy so US shareholders get bigger dividends.

In 2002 German rejected the claims for War in Iraq, abused at the time they proved to be right and unwilling to bend despite the abuse.

Germans understand history very well.

Can you kindly point me to where Trump has changed US commitment to article 5?

Glad you can find equivalence to droning around the midwest US in the flight levels and taking incoming.

NATO went to war over 9/11, and NATO soldiers (including Germans) died.

I have neither the time nor inclination to trawl through Trump' s Twitter feed, but it's all there if you care to look.

DOJ: Donald Trump's tweets are 'official statements of the President' - Washington Times

DOJ: Trump's tweets are 'official statements of the President'

...but you already knew that.

If Germans are paying more for their energy, it is because of decisions Germans made, and they long preceded Trump. But as usual, "when you don't like the way something is going, blame Trump".

But they didn't did they. Russia isn't the country threatening to use Naval assets to blockade LNG ships delivering to customers is it, that was US Secretary of Energy. Russia hasn't attempt to blockade a country claiming it has got nuclear arms, while ignoring actions of its ally in funding them in Pakistan.

The attempt to sanction any company that is involved in Nordsteam 2 is warfare by another means, Europe is not playing ball any longer and US against this because it loses its hold.

US has used Oil as a weapon for decades just now countrys are refusing to bow down to US interests first rather than their own. US has been a force for good throughout the world BUT has also been a force for demanding its Industrys get preference over everybody elses, this keeps campaign cash coming to its politicians.

Germans will not be though, they will have guarantee of supply and not be concerned that Saudi's and their mates can blockade a country or threaten when it suits, like Qatar and Canada.

Germany is part of NATO. But they are not fulfilling their NATO obligations. If their 'sovreign' (sic) decision is to not comply with their NATO obligations, then they should withdraw from NATO rather than expecting the US to cover their shortfall.

Germany can do what they like...

Came second in two World Wars and accepted the money from the Marshall Plan to rebuild. Accepted the US help [and others] in the Berlin Airlift and protection in the Cold War. Maybe it's time for them to pay back if they want freedom..!

Haven't they? How much is enough?

Germany. has a commitment to fund NATO and a failure in the person of Merkel.

She hates being shown to be what she is and is in trouble at home because of her policies.

The German Nation must fulfill its obligations under the NATO Treaty....just as the United States is obliged to fulfill its obligations.

Is it time to put an end to US involvement in NATO....after all we have two rather large bodies of water between us and Europe....and we are energy independent.

Is the UK and Europe energy independent....if not....then they are beholden to whoever supplies their energy needs.

My People are tired of War....and we have a President that does not want to get us into any unless it is in our direct definable National Security Interests.

If Merkel thinks she can trump Trump....that might very well be her last swing at the bat.

The Germans would be a lot better off without her and her Leftist policies.

https://www.rferl.org/a/us-troops-co.../29812037.html

Considering the US has spent vast sums over the years sweet talking countries into baseing US troops in their countries to project their presence the world over, with the advantages that confers in their ability to strike from close range.
Faced with the costs that Trump wants to foist upon those countries, one wonders how the US would react to those countries refusing to abide and asked the US to close it's bases and leave. Imagine if they lost their bases in the Med, Germany or the UK and Diego García , the likes of the strikes on Libya, Syria or Iraq would suddenly have got a harder proposition to undertake.

Is this not more of a comment on the incredibly weak German economy (they can't afford to spend more) rather than a political declaration (we don't want to spend more)?

Top economists slash their 2019 growth forecast for Germany

German growth rate to fall sharply this year, Ifo warns

German industrial production drops unexpectedly

Well, one body of water and that body of water is the same now as it was in 1917 and 1941.

Russia did not turn off the taps to refuse Germany gas. It was because Ukraine refused to pay its bills. This is why Nordstream 2 and SudStream have been built to end Ukraines attempt at blackmail which was happening. Stop with the personal abuse and focus on the subject matter.

US has threatened Germany energy independence in favour of wanting to allow the crooks in Ukraine to blackmail Europe. Funny how Europe is saying no.

US involvement in NATO and military alliances is not just about using their military might, it is also about ensuring they use this as part of supporting US economy. US Diplomats happy to talk to Assad last year in Damascus and one of the basis of ending their support for the head hackers was that US companies get prime position in the reconstruction of Syria.

No one is energy indpendent but if you are saying that Europe is beholding to whomever supplies their energy. Maybe that explains why US has kowtowed to Saudi's for decades and gave them a pass for killing Americans on 9/11 and let the Saudi's laugh about it.

So which is worse, beholding to US or Russia ?

I like Trump because of his desire not to start wars, its why the media and deep state detest him.

The southern Eurozone states have a very different perspective on Germany's contribution to financial and political stability in Europe. I don't agree with Varoufakis's Marxist views but I find his analysis of the issue here exceptionally compelling:

I dont believe I said anywhere they shut off German gas. They did weaponize NG at that point. If you think Vlad would hesitate to use gas as a bargaining tool, you're wrong.

I must say I find it odd you like Trump because he doesnt start wars but you admire Putin because he does.

It depends which direction you travel in.....with various Bays, Gulfs, Seas and Oceans along the way....perhaps with a Canal or two as well.


You Euro-Centric folks might take a couple of minutes and consider what this article has to say about the Role of Energy production and the changes in technology and output cause in strategic relationships.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/...ependence.html


I would very much like to see a Strategic Alliance between all of the America's...North, South, Central , Canada, and Mexico.....for Energy Matters and leave the rest of the World to sort out its own solutions.

That would end any role the Middle East would play in our National Interests and throw it al into Europe's lap.

Europe and the UK could deal with Russia and the rest of the world like Japan and China could deal with the Arabs.

I think Stuff made a decent point.

As to the Germans choosing to be more like Belgium and not pony up: not too surprised.
It is a lot easier to sell a program of collective defense to your political public than it is "to go elsewhere with our blood and treasure" ... which may be part of Merkel's problem.
The German political landscape is also morphing.

During the Cold War, we used to see this mutual eye gouging between the US and a wide number of NATO allies on who was or wasn't showing up to fill the buckets. A few years back, I was reading a biography of Ike and was interested to find out that this was a problem in the mid to late 50's as well. I'll make an estimate that it's been a source of political friction since the Alliance was formed. (And a few nations show up regularly and drop the money in the bucket)

There's been an ongoing political debate since about the time the Wall went down: whence NATO? Do we still need it? In the mid 90's, somewhat to my surprise with the "peace dividend" and Asia becoming a major area of strategic interest (Pacific Rim model). the vote remained "Yes." On this side of the pond, there were no few voices suggesting that it was time to retire NATO. Its purpose as a coalition had been served.
And then NATO collectively chose to do out of area ops.
This was not merely "collective defense." It became something new. (ISAF is but one NATO out of area op, but it's one of the longest running ones; the Bosnia IFOR/SFOR mission went for a good while as well)
NATO in the year 2019 is a new thing, though I guess the internal bickering is the same old-same old, but with more voices.

If it is time for any nation to leave NATO, all they have to do is give the rest one year's notice. That's in the treaty.
The question is, how do you throw one out? (Asked with the idea that the Caliphate reestablishes itself in Istanbul - Mr Erdogan now and again gives that impression).
That isn't in the treaty.
Then what? Whence NATO in that case?
Bickering about NATO funding balances would seem a lesser concern at that point.

Er US Govt happy to use it as a bargaining tool, it took Venezualan assets and handed them over to someone nobody ever elected to be President. Whether you like or dislike Maduro is irrelevant but one country deciding to confiscate assets and just hand them over to its favoured political pawn is not a good idea.

Nope I don't admire anybody starting wars but happy Russia got involved in Syria at the request of the Syrian Government unlike other parties.

When US leadership demands Nato members buy more stuff they really mean, "Buy more US produced stuff" rather than buy more native or UK or French produced.

When German politicians are openly viewing US Ambassador as akin to a "High Commissioner from an occupying power" then you start to see things unravelling. Germany is looking after Germanys economic interests.

This was US energy strategy from 1970's, extract and cap wells, in last 15 years it has been frack and produce. The fact that US Fracking is in debt to the tune of $250 Billion is the big story that people are ignoring. If Saudi's turn on the taps and get oil to $40 a barrel or lower then watch what happens.

According to Lyndon Johnson, good politics aims to have everyone inside the tent, p***ing out, rather than having some outside doing the obverse.
Germany has fought Russia twice, to disastrous effect. It wants to co-opt Russia with economic ties and investments.
That seems more sensible than pushing Russia into the arms of Mr Xi.

Next time you respond to me, please stay on topic. You are about 30 years out of date. The "Occupying Power" deal ended about when the Wall came down, if not before. All the Germans ever had to do was do what President Corazon Aquino did in the early 90's in the Philippines: invite the Americans to leave.
We did.

The Germans to date have not had the guts to do what she did, or, they do not believe that it is in their interests to do so.
Given that Germany is the home country to the father of realpolitik, Otto von Bismarck, maybe you need to think a little harder about why the latter is more likely.

Your ax grinding does not do you credit, and is blinding you.

@etudiant
Interesting point.
The sell out to china started with Bush 41 about a year after Reagan left office.

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

First and formost you have made up something into a quote that I DID NOT POST.

The " " quote is a direct quote from a Senior German member of parliment who seems to have the support of the other parties. Nothing to do with me rather it is the view now been seen in Germany of the actions of the current US Ambassador. Both German major parties joined in with this criticism. Perhaps you should read the quote yourself.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-us-amb...der/a-47975156