Snowygerry
Deity
It is a vague promise to spend 5 % in 2035, anything can happen by then.
[RD] War in Ukraine: Other topics
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
Verbose
Deity
Yes, but it is still no way to run anything of actual sginificance – it's short-termism as opposed to even mid-termism. Though I guess everyone understands why Rutte played the sycophant to the extent he did here. It might be felt that it can be afforded this once. But if it becomes a pattern and a habit it's a huge problem.Treat him like a child you mean ? They basically promised him a pony when he grows up, good boy.
He seemed happy, that was the intention.
It can be engaged in as a one-off on the assumption that the US will eventually reset to "normal", as it was before. But Trump or no Trump, we have zero indication the US will do that. And if so, Rutte might have set is a bad precedent. It's not like Trump will respect him for it.
Verbose
Deity
Which was why some of the countries closer to Russia pushed for 2030, to get some urgency into things, so as to actually mean something.
I think one of the objectives is to reassure the national defense industries; yes you can invest in increased production capacity and new technologies. Long term investments require long time planning and financing. Also, there's quite the elastic band in what counts towards the 5%. By the agreed measures, my country is already spending 3.5% of GDP on defense
And yes, the political landscape will be different by 2030 and then 2035 and onwards. By then Russia may not pose much of a threat to Europe anymore - maybe the clown show will move across the globe and it'll be China and North Korea?
Snowygerry
Deity
Precisely - our government as already discretely announced they aim to hit 3,5 by 2034.
Everyone can read in this NATO statement whatever they want, which is good because the exact % is meaningless.
It is a budget, an estimate of a prediction, budgets are always full of lies.
Important thing was get rid of Trump and focus his attention on other things, and in that respect the summit was a succes.
Snowygerry
Deity
I am the elites.
Snowygerry
Deity
I’m sure it can be repeated, they basically treated him like a small child and he loved it.
False praise and meaningless promises, Teflon Mark was just the man for the job no one else could have done it better.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,147
yes , this is exactly how it works .
and you will stay pay that 5% , because in reality you are nothing of the sorts .
Snowygerry
Deity
We’ll see, this a bit of a silly discussion, best stick to the subject.
Verbose
Deity
Sure we can run things like a court of old, which is what this was most like...
No problems on the horizon with that? (It's a big part why Russia manages to screw itself up like it does fx.)
Verbose
Deity
I don't think that will work. The national defense industry reps have spent the last couple of years telling everyone that will listen that the only think that will do the job are actual contracts, that allows them to plan ahead with actual guarantees. Otherwise it's just pie-in-the-sky, and they will continue to hold off on spending they own money on hopes and prayers.
Snowygerry
Deity
The word used here to describe the spectacle was “vaudeville” don’t know how to translate that exactly. Perhaps it is best left untranslated 
Verbose
Deity
No one has spent 5% yet.
And it is a silly number...
Sweden went through the entire (last) Cold War topping out its military spending as 3,5% – for which it could operate 1000 fast jets, 60 submarines, 1 million mobilizable troops, with some 40 mech and armoured brigades (200 000+). What would we even do with 5%, except maybe sink the excess into nukes, just to spend money?
Sure things are more expensive today (and more capable), but we are also rather richer than back then.
Verbose
Deity
Works in Swedish just fine too.The word used here to describe the spectacle was “vaudeville” don’t know how to translate that exactly. Perhaps it is best left untranslated
And yet... are we assuming NATO IS now a "vaudeville", or was that just an aberration? What might fx the Kremlin conclude, that it already hasn't, about the non-serioius nature of NATO?
banzay13
Emperor
As i understand help to Ukraine also count as %% of thos 5%
Snowygerry
Deity
Yes, that was one of the required points for our diplomats.
There is no use having 40 AA launchers here, we want them over there, where they matter.
There is no use having 40 AA launchers here, we want them over there, where they matter.
Snowygerry
Deity
You cannot have a serious alliance with a clown like FDT.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,147
france was spending 5% between 1950 and '70 , fighting two major colonial wars , losing both in addition to the faiilure of holding Israel as a 5th column , but got the Concorde . There are people in CFC who have screamed at the evils of the world . You are not going to have it both ways , right ? If Trump says 5% and his cronies say yes , you are going to do it at 5% . And do not ever come here to suddenly declare Russia is no longer a threat or something . Social support mechanisms are hated by the ultra rich , Europe will not have them , if the rich desire so ...
Verbose
Deity
And yet we have no indication the US will be run differently henceforth - which would then lead to some secondary conclusions.
However, for the time being the interests catered to by increased spending, even with a still functioning NATO, coincides with those of increased spending in the case NATO rather implodes.
Going by the sounds coming out of the Trump admin right now (Trump himself included, even if it's very uncertain he understands the implications of words coming out of his mouth just generally), clearly a lot of people on the US side DO understand that it is a massive losing ticket for the US if NATO goes on the rubbish heap of history.
Last edited:
