SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, echoing his boss in Washington, warned on Wednesday that the amount of American support for NATO could depend on whether other countries meet their own spending commitments.
"Americans cannot care more for your children's future security than you do," Mr. Mattis said in his first speech to NATO allies since becoming defense secretary. "I owe it to you to give you clarity on the political reality in the United States and to state the fair demand from my country's people in concrete terms."
"America will meet its responsibilities," he said, but he made clear that American support had its limits.
In his speech to NATO defense ministers, Mr. Mattis repeated a call made by previous American secretaries of defense, for European allies to spend more on their militaries. His comments on Wednesday give teeth to President Trump's expressed skepticism about the alliance.
What's more, Mr. Mattis went further than his predecessors in apparently linking American contributions to the alliance to what other countries spend.
"If your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to this alliance, each of your capitals needs to show support for our common defense," he said.
Source: The New York Times
(Score: 5, Interesting) by looorg on Sunday February 19 2017, @03:25AM
I would agree with Mattis, the 2% recommendation should be fulfilled by all that want to be in NATO. From what I have read it was downplayed a bit just the day after, included in that I have seen that Norway has already said they won't bring it up to 2% any time soon - their current 2020 projection is 1.57% (currently it's 1.56%). I find it quite disturbing how the GNP spending on Military has dropped to these low levels for most of Europe. Around 1 to 1.5% is the current norm. Some 40 years ago it was at least double what it is today. Sure the red menace was still alive and kicking but it's still remarkably how it has been allowed to drop. Sweden isn't part of NATO but they have let their GNP spending on defence drop from 3.1% in the 70's to about 1% today, you can't build a military for that kind of money - certainly not for a country that is the third largest by landmass in Europe (not counting Russia).
There is a large disparity between countries in NATO to, just like with members of the EU. It might not make sense for some countries to spend that much on defence. Just imagine the states of the USA where their own countries - Vermont would never spend as much on defence as say Texas -- they are small and not afraid of the Canadians while the Texans are well .. Texans. Then there are also other aspects such as political and cultural. Do some countries really belong in NATO. Some where clearly allowed in for geopolitical reasons - large borders with Russia and other Warsaw Pact countries, some where even in the WP, suitable locations for bases and sigint collection spots. Not cause they had big and functional armies.
A related problem is that a lot of countries in Europe after the collapse of the USSR decided to reform their military forces so they could be used more aboard instead of just at home. Sadly they even tried to do this on the cheap so it amounted to almost nothing good. Then in the early 2000:s a lot of them realized their mistake and wanted to reform form national defence. But at that time there didn't seem to be much of a threat so it was mostly ignored and just talked about. Now parts of Europe and NATO once again share a border with warzones and they are slowly starting to spend. Better late then never. But panic spending never really turns into good spending.
That said it's sometimes a bit rich to here the US bitch about how much they spend on "defending Europe" and playing world police. Nobody asked for that. It's a role they kind of took upon themselves. So it might not be that hard to conclude that if the US wants to spend large chunks of money on their military then you let them. Fine by us. It's not like the USA hasn't got value for their money - military power gives influence. If the USA would start to spend less and other countries more there will eventually come a time when the other parties tell the USA to go fuck off and we don't need or want you anymore. Which might feel great but your power and influence goes to then. It's nice to have another continent as a buffer and filled with toadies that like you (for the most part). So it's not all sunshine and rainbows. Nobody is going to buy US military equipment anymore then besides the USA and some close allies that you have not totally managed to alienate. Europe can be self-sufficient in that regard. Buying USA products is in that regards a bit of a "thank you for the protection" purchase. So the threats to pull back can be somewhat hollow and have unforeseen consequences.
My main fear regarding if NATO steps back is that the idiots in the EU might see that as an invitation to step in and really build their own EU-army. That would be a fucking disaster of epic proportions.