A Deeply Fractured US

[Brad Sallows]

There's nothing "disgusting" about requiring allies to "pay up" in order to enjoy the benefits of the alliance. Arguably what's "disgusting" is countries that free-ride on benefits provided by others.

Feel free to argue among yourselves which is more "disgusting". But don't try to pretend the former is and the latter isn't.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Remind me, what was literally the one and only time NATO article 5 was ever invoked, and who did the alliance collectively come to the defence of?

Considering US contributions to collective security, it would have been the height of folly for members not to answer. For the "one-and-only" instance to be the premier contributor calling in the markers doesn't make the point you seem to think it makes.

 

[brihard]

Considering US contributions to collective security, it would have been the height of folly for members not to answer. For the "one-and-only" instance to be the premier contributor calling in the markers doesn't make the point you seem to think it makes.

The point I’m making is that Trump is beclowning himself, and through his buffoonery and intemperate speeches is compromising the collective security alliance overall. His statements only embolden adversaries. He will sell anyone and everything down the river to get reelected.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The point I’m making is that Trump is beclowning himself, and through his buffoonery and intemperate speeches is compromising the collective security alliance overall. His statements only embolden adversaries. He will sell anyone and everything down the river to get reelected.

Yes.

And he is also appealing to the non-interventionist, I'm-an-American-and-my-interests-should-be-first voters.

Canada is pretty much a free-rider, which troubles me, while I am not troubled at all by American isolationists. When criticism is levelled at the free-riders of the world by Americans, the Americans have a point. I can't conceive of anything more craven and dishonest than trying to project the problem back at the US by faulting those who make the point, even if they do it with no grace whatsoever.

Having not sought criticism, we should accept it anyways. Instead of taking the unethical path of trying to find a way to avoid doing what we know we ought to but don't want to, we should focus on building combat-capable formations instead of trying to game various kinds of spending to meet the 2% target. Fix the problem.

Or we can just run around expressing outrage as if someone farted in church.

 

[dimsum]

There's nothing "disgusting" about requiring allies to "pay up" in order to enjoy the benefits of the alliance. Arguably what's "disgusting" is countries that free-ride on benefits provided by others.

Feel free to argue among yourselves which is more "disgusting". But don't try to pretend the former is and the latter isn't.

So, if we’re going by “2% GDP on Defence”, Canada (and any other country) could spend the remainder on pay/housing/benefits for its service members while buying zero new military capabilities that could assist other NATO allies.

I mean, I wouldn’t mind a huge pay bump and great (and cheap/free) housing, but I fail to see how that solves the problem from the NATO lens.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Actually, there is something "disgusting" about requiring allies to "pay up" for effective use of the NATO terms of agreement.

What disgust me is that there is no such thing as "paying" to be in NATO. NATO is not a country club where you have to "buy" your right to participate and then pay green fees every time you play. It is a political treaty for defense where countries undertake some obligations to one another - none of which is financial as there is no such thing as a NATO annual fee - except to maintain the treaty headquarters' building and upkeep. There are also some specific contributions that are negotiated on a piece by piece basis.

For instance, the NATO AWACS fleet is operated on the basis of specific undertakings by the nations who elected to participate to provide so many trained personnel in positions x, y and z and to provide for their portion (as agreed) of the operating costs. Similarly, before the fall of the wall, there were specific number of escorts that some NATO countries (including Canada) agreed to keep available for the protection of convoys in the Atlantic. Then there were specific formations that some countries agreed to make available for the defense of Europe - The British Army on the Rhine, Canada's brigade as part of it, etc.

There was no actual amount of money any member country had to "pay" to "NATO".

How much money countries spend on defense is up to them and based on their individual view of their requirement. The US is NOT, repeat NOT, spending what it is spending on defense BECAUSE of any NATO undertaking but because that is what the US considers necessary for the defense of its own interests around the world. The 2% undertaking is just that: an undertaking by NATO nations to spend that much on their own defense - not on aggregate NATO defense -, because it sends a signal to potential enemies, not because it contributes to collective defense. Lichtenstein could spend 10% of its GDP on defense and it would make no difference whatsoever to NATO's collective defenses, whereof Canada's contribution can, for all practical purpose, be entirely used in collective defense because there are little to no threat against our own territory, even if it only amounts to one percent of our GDP.

BTW, Brad, I am sick and tired of people (even in these fora) always presenting Canada as a "free rider". Canada has the seventh largest NATO defense budget in terms of spending in actual dollars. Who beats us: the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland. Every one of those countries has a much larger population than Canada and, except for Poland, has a higher GDP. Moreover, every one of those countries needs to spend on their own defense as a deterrence from invasion - not necessarily as a contribution to alliance collective defense - whereas Canada needs very little in terms of deterrence and as a result is mostly contributing to collective defense with its spending.

 

[Remius]

Actually, there is something "disgusting" about requiring allies to "pay up" for effective use of the NATO terms of agreement.

What disgust me is that there is no such thing as "paying" to be in NATO. NATO is not a country club where you have to "buy" your right to participate and then pay green fees every time you play. It is a political treaty for defense where countries undertake some obligations to one another - none of which is financial as there is no such thing as a NATO annual fee - except to maintain the treaty headquarters' building and upkeep. There are also some specific contributions that are negotiated on a piece by piece basis.

For instance, the NATO AWACS fleet is operated on the basis of specific undertakings by the nations who elected to participate to provide so many trained personnel in positions x, y and z and to provide for their portion (as agreed) of the operating costs. Similarly, before the fall of the wall, there were specific number of escorts that some NATO countries (including Canada) agreed to keep available for the protection of convoys in the Atlantic. Then there were specific formations that some countries agreed to make available for the defense of Europe - The British Army on the Rhine, Canada's brigade as part of it, etc.

There was no actual amount of money any member country had to "pay" to "NATO".

How much money countries spend on defense is up to them and based on their individual view of their requirement. The US is NOT, repeat NOT, spending what it is spending on defense BECAUSE of any NATO undertaking but because that is what the US considers necessary for the defense of its own interests around the world. The 2% undertaking is just that: an undertaking by NATO nations to spend that much on their own defense - not on aggregate NATO defense -, because it sends a signal to potential enemies, not because it contributes to collective defense. Lichtenstein could spend 10% of its GDP on defense and it would make no difference whatsoever to NATO's collective defenses, whereof Canada's contribution can, for all practical purpose, be entirely used in collective defense because there are little to no threat against our own territory, even if it only amounts to one percent of our GDP.

BTW, Brad, I am sick and tired of people (even in these fora) always presenting Canada as a "free rider". Canada has the seventh largest NATO defense budget in terms of spending in actual dollars. Who beats us: the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland. Every one of those countries has a much larger population than Canada and, except for Poland, has a higher GDP. Moreover, every one of those countries needs to spend on their own defense as a deterrence from invasion - not necessarily as a contribution to alliance collective defense - whereas Canada needs very little in terms of deterrence and as a result is mostly contributing to collective defense with its spending.

I think this my favourite post of the day…

 

[Halifax Tar]

Encore presentation from POTUS45's Greatest Hits ....

White House responds to Trump encouraging Russia to do 'whatever' they want to some NATO members: 'Unhinged'

The White House slammed former President Trump for his "appalling" comments encouraging Russia to do what they want to NATO members that fail to meet defense spending guidelines.

www.foxnews.com

Trump draws backlash after saying he'd let Russia attack NATO countries he deems 'delinquent'

The former president's remarks at a rally in South Carolina drew criticism from the head of the trans-Atlantic alliance, who said they could put the lives of American and European soldiers at risk.

www.nbcnews.com

NATO bits start at 40 minutes in on the speech here from Right Side Broadcasting Network - read it as you will

 

[Good2Golf]

Canada is pretty much a free-rider, which troubles me, while I am not troubled at all by American isolationists. When criticism is levelled at the free-riders of the world by Americans, the Americans have a point. I can't conceive of anything more craven and dishonest than trying to project the problem back at the US by faulting those who make the point, even if they do it with no grace whatsoever.

I don’t think that was the point @brihard was making, and while Canada was spending only 1.1% of its GDP in 2001, it answered America’s call for Article 5 support and deployed SOF and then conventional forces, to support directly U.S. operations, and the wider alliance as NATO ramped up ISAF. That’s not “projecting the problem back at the U.S.” those are facts of Canada’s immediate support to its closest ally.

 

[brihard]

Yes.

And he is also appealing to the non-interventionist, I'm-an-American-and-my-interests-should-be-first voters.

Canada is pretty much a free-rider, which troubles me, while I am not troubled at all by American isolationists. When criticism is levelled at the free-riders of the world by Americans, the Americans have a point. I can't conceive of anything more craven and dishonest than trying to project the problem back at the US by faulting those who make the point, even if they do it with no grace whatsoever.

Having not sought criticism, we should accept it anyways. Instead of taking the unethical path of trying to find a way to avoid doing what we know we ought to but don't want to, we should focus on building combat-capable formations instead of trying to game various kinds of spending to meet the 2% target. Fix the problem.

Or we can just run around expressing outrage as if someone farted in church.

How, precisely, are we a free rider? The awkward bit hardly anyone says out loud is that the only conceivably realistic, viable physical thread to our territorial sovereignty is America herself. As for our contributions to America’s defence, we give them ready access to our airspace through NORAD, and we host long range radar sites and SIG/ELINT collection facilities on our soil, taking advantage of our geographic proximity to Russia. We may not bring much to the table for expeditionary operations, but we contribute significantly to America having three oceans as an effective moat. We are a net contributor to the easier and more economical physical protection of their country; less so their diplomatic and economic hegemony.

Yes, Trump is pandering to low info and isolationist types. The fact that his statements are simply crass self-serving politics isn’t a defence of their contents.

 

[dimsum]

I think this my favourite post of the day…

Agreed.

I also like @Oldgateboatdriver ’s analogy of a country club…like a certain club that a certain former POTUS owns.

 

[FJAG]

NATO is not a country club where you have to "buy" your right to participate and then pay green fees every time you play.

Unfortunately this is exactly what Trump compares it to in his limited view of the world.

How much money countries spend on defense is up to them and based on their individual view of their requirement. The US is NOT, repeat NOT, spending what it is spending on defense BECAUSE of any NATO undertaking but because that is what the US considers necessary for the defense of its own interests around the world.

And that's how it works around the world. Post WW 2 the US, having come in slowly in two world wars decided that it needed to be the policeman of the world. I don't know how many of you remember the Domino Theory, but it pretty much ran American foreign policy vis a vis the Communist block for many decades. We are seeing the same thing with both of Russia and China - one using force the other economic pressure.

The 2% undertaking is just that: an undertaking by NATO nations to spend that much on their own defense - not on aggregate NATO defense -, because it sends a signal to potential enemies, not because it contributes to collective defense. . . . whereof Canada's contribution can, for all practical purpose, be entirely used in collective defense because there are little to no threat against our own territory, even if it only amounts to one percent of our GDP.

Completely agree . . . but . . . collective defence has been the post-WW2 standard by which the Soviets were held at bay. It has been the bulwark of both the US and Canada which has the advantage of being virtually surrounded by seas. But when the terrorists punched through in 2001 NATO reacted in bulk to support the USA militarily - something the morons who advise Trump never seem to explain to him.

BTW, Brad, I am sick and tired of people (even in these fora) always presenting Canada as a "free rider". Canada has the seventh largest NATO defense budget in terms of spending in actual dollars. Who beats us: the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland. Every one of those countries has a much larger population than Canada and, except for Poland, has a higher GDP. Moreover, every one of those countries needs to spend on their own defense as a deterrence from invasion - not necessarily as a contribution to alliance collective defense - whereas Canada needs very little in terms of deterrence and as a result is mostly contributing to collective defense with its spending.

I agree in large measure with this but consider our own financial contribution to defence both hypocritical and short sighted.

We have agreed to 2% but the current leadership has flat out said we never will reach that goal. That's hypocrisy and results in a national reputation that's in tatters. That cascades into all manner of diplomatic relationships which are built on trust and mutual benefit.

It's also short sighted. Canada's defence does depend on deterrence. Canada is a large country with a humungous shoreline and a continuing supply of raw materials which someone at some time will covet and take steps to lay claim to. Deterrence through a strong alliance prevents that. An alliance, however, will only work if everyone contributes. At this point in time, once again, that means deploying forces to Europe. I think the spending is quite skewed. Our navy and air forces are primarily a domestic defence force and only incidentally (to the extent that we decide) a collective defence force. On the other hand, the army's highest and best use is forward defence in Europe and should primarily be tuned to that like it was seventy to forty years ago and secondly to defence in the homeland.

Personally I think we should spend at least 2% but should also strive to do much better with the very large amounts of money the government already steers to DND. That 2% can easily be diverted back to Canadian workers and industries if properly managed. Those are problems that DND, and the government in general, can and should fix.

 

[Jarnhamar]

"Thanks to President Biden's experienced leadership, NATO is now the largest and most vital it has ever been.

Biden's experienced leadership has made NATO the most vital its ever been?

Sounds like something Karine Jean-Pierre would say.

Most countries in the world either benefit from the US's protection, or take handouts.

It's a dicknhead thing for Trump to say but it might resonate with more than a few US taxpayers.

 

[KevinB]

Unfortunately this is exactly what Trump compares it to in his limited view of the world.

And that's how it works around the world. Post WW 2 the US, having come in slowly in two world wars decided that it needed to be the policeman of the world. I don't know how many of you remember the Domino Theory, but it pretty much ran American foreign policy vis a vis the Communist block for many decades. We are seeing the same thing with both of Russia and China - one using force the other economic pressure.

Completely agree . . . but . . . collective defence has been the post-WW2 standard by which the Soviets were held at bay. It has been the bulwark of both the US and Canada which has the advantage of being virtually surrounded by seas. But when the terrorists punched through in 2001 NATO reacted in bulk to support the USA militarily - something the morons who advise Trump never seem to explain to him.

I agree in large measure with this but consider our own financial contribution to defence both hypocritical and short sighted.

We have agreed to 2% but the current leadership has flat out said we never will reach that goal. That's hypocrisy and results in a national reputation that's in tatters. That cascades into all manner of diplomatic relationships which are built on trust and mutual benefit.

It's also short sighted. Canada's defence does depend on deterrence. Canada is a large country with a humungous shoreline and a continuing supply of raw materials which someone at some time will covet and take steps to lay claim to. Deterrence through a strong alliance prevents that. An alliance, however, will only work if everyone contributes. At this point in time, once again, that means deploying forces to Europe. I think the spending is quite skewed. Our navy and air forces are primarily a domestic defence force and only incidentally (to the extent that we decide) a collective defence force. On the other hand, the army's highest and best use is forward defence in Europe and should primarily be tuned to that like it was seventy to forty years ago and secondly to defence in the homeland.

Personally I think we should spend at least 2% but should also strive to do much better with the very large amounts of money the government already steers to DND. That 2% can easily be diverted back to Canadian workers and industries if properly managed. Those are problems that DND, and the government in general, can and should fix.

JT did agree to 2% then did a walk back right after.

Let’s be honest, Canada is a relative free loader, sure you guys are reliable to send a BN and SOF somewhere, but when push comes to shove, you don’t have enough equipment to do a heck of a lot more in a conventional conflict.

 

[brihard]

Biden's experienced leadership has made NATO the most vital its ever been?

I mean, if anyone’s leadership has made NATO vital, it’s Putin’s…

 

[Brad Sallows]

So, if we’re going by “2% GDP on Defence”, Canada (and any other country) could spend the remainder on pay/housing/benefits for its service members while buying zero new military capabilities that could assist other NATO allies.

I mean, I wouldn’t mind a huge pay bump and great (and cheap/free) housing, but I fail to see how that solves the problem from the NATO lens.

As I wrote in a subsequent post: "we should focus on building combat-capable formations".

 

[Brad Sallows]

BTW, Brad, I am sick and tired of people (even in these fora) always presenting Canada as a "free rider". Canada has the seventh largest NATO defense budget in terms of spending in actual dollars. Who beats us: the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland. Every one of those countries has a much larger population than Canada and, except for Poland, has a higher GDP.

I actually stopped caring about the nominal, per capita, absolute, adjusted, GDP, whatever figures a long while back. I'm only interested in combat formations with all-arms capabilities: army, air, naval. We're not so hot.

 

[Brad Sallows]

How, precisely, are we a free rider?

Everyone who is agitated that Congress might not commit the US taxpayers to footing the bill for Ukraine aid is free-riding.

If the US spends what it does to serve its own interests, then we should all be good with the notion that the US can abruptly withdraw or draw down wherever and whenever it chooses. There's no reason to yelp at "Republicans" in Congress for not spending enough to help Ukraine, or to deter Iran, or China, or anything else, unless we think they're paying for something we need.

 

[Kirkhill]

Re Collective Defence

Will We Sacrifice DC and New York For Taiwan?​

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2023/08/13/will_we_sacrifice_dc_and_new_york_for_taiwan_972664.html

 

[FJAG]

JT did agree to 2% then did a walk back right after.

That's where the hypocrisy came in.

Let’s be honest, Canada is a relative free loader, sure you guys are reliable to send a BN and SOF somewhere, but when push comes to shove, you don’t have enough equipment to do a heck of a lot more in a conventional conflict.

I'll disagree to an extent. Freeloading is when you take something of value from someone else. The government, and many of the people do not consider that defence as necessary or, alternatively, something that comes lower in the priority of things that make up the necessities of life. Name me one war after WW2 that required Canadian military intervention. If conflict is so far removed from you that it doesn't effect you then why participate.

Think about it. Canada could have the largest army on Earth but under the treaty, the degree of participation in any NATO dispute/conflict is entirely up to the participants. We could send a rifle section to Europe and still meet our NATO commitment. Article 5:

.... each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

The 2% guideline is a recent (2014) issue as the Europeans shit their collective pants when Russia ambled into Ukraine with tanks. We also committed to spending 20% on new equipment (which is something I don't think we did before the recent capital projects - I must admit I'm reluctant to trust the DND website on those statistics as I fear they are the subject of creative accounting)

Don't get me wrong. I think once you commit to something you have to follow through or you're a dick. But let's be honest, GDP is an interesting measure. As was pointed out above, Canada is the 14th highest spender on defence in the world. We also spend a lot on domestic social programs which are a higher priority for a Canadian government that wants to be re-elected. The stupid things that governments do to stay in power are well recognized down south of the border.