I think that even the US might find it hard to meet 4%.
Trump claims it's over 4%, which is all that will matter to him. If he starts insisting on 4%, irrespective of what NATO agrees to, he's likely to keep repeating it.
Has he told the CIA?
From their World Factbook
4.24% of GDP (2012) 3.83% of GDP (2013) 3.51% of GDP (2014) 3.3% of GDP (2015) 3.29% of GDP (2016) spending maintained in 2017 Trump requested 10% cash increase for 2018 followed by 9% for 2019.
If US GDP has increased by 2.9 and 2.2% in the last two years, defence spending must surely be under 4% of GDP currently.
The Department of Veterans Affairs, which includes health care for vets, is also included in that number, which means it isn't comparable with the UK, for example.
I think that even the US might find it hard to meet 4%.
Trump claims it's over 4%, which is all that will matter to him. If he starts insisting on 4%, irrespective of what NATO agrees to, he's likely to keep repeating it.
Has he told the CIA?
From their World Factbook
4.24% of GDP (2012) 3.83% of GDP (2013) 3.51% of GDP (2014) 3.3% of GDP (2015) 3.29% of GDP (2016) spending maintained in 2017 Trump requested 10% cash increase for 2018 followed by 9% for 2019.
If US GDP has increased by 2.9 and 2.2% in the last two years, defence spending must surely be under 4% of GDP currently.
Trump asked NATO to formally raise its target (5:16 p.m.)
“President Trump, who spoke, raised the question not just to reach 2%, today, but set a new target - 4%. He just left after he announced that,” Bulgarian president Rumen Radev told reporters, according to BNR public radio.
I think Trump is deliberately trying to make meeting the NATO target impossible.
I think that even the US might find it hard to meet 4%.
Most NATO countries would not have the native industrial capacity to meet such an increase, and would have to buy lots of expensive kit from abroad. I wonder which country would have the most to gain from such an arrangement?
I think the answer to this thread header is pretty simple - Corbyn is not that awesome, certainly not as awesome as his true believers pretend (nor was May at the height of her powers), and people are recognising that, particularly after the high of a better than expected GE performance made even those opposed to him think better of him.
Unfortunately for his internal and external opponents the GE proved that even when many are blatantly not fans of his, they will still vote for him in droves, and that might well continue.
Yes but be needs to win Tory voters for an overall majority as Labour are still 64 seats short of that
I think the answer to this thread header is pretty simple - Corbyn is not that awesome, certainly not as awesome as his true believers pretend (nor was May at the height of her powers), and people are recognising that, particularly after the high of a better than expected GE performance made even those opposed to him think better of him.
Unfortunately for his internal and external opponents the GE proved that even when many are blatantly not fans of his, they will still vote for him in droves, and that might well continue.
Yes but be needs to win Tory voters for an overall majority as Labour are still 64 seats short of that
That, or he needs Tory voters not to turn out. It's not a certainty, to be sure.
I think that even the US might find it hard to meet 4%.
Trump claims it's over 4%, which is all that will matter to him. If he starts insisting on 4%, irrespective of what NATO agrees to, he's likely to keep repeating it.
Has he told the CIA?
From their World Factbook
4.24% of GDP (2012) 3.83% of GDP (2013) 3.51% of GDP (2014) 3.3% of GDP (2015) 3.29% of GDP (2016) spending maintained in 2017 Trump requested 10% cash increase for 2018 followed by 9% for 2019.
If US GDP has increased by 2.9 and 2.2% in the last two years, defence spending must surely be under 4% of GDP currently.
You are using real gdp, not nominal.
CIA peddle fake news anyway according to The Moron.
Surely to get EU defence spending to 4% of GDP all that is required is for the French and German governments to agree to cover all of the A400M cost overruns
These amendments look like they could have the unintended consequence of softening the Chequers deal even further and keeping the whole UK in the customs union.
But it is clear that there are now effectively two Tory parties in the H of C - ERG with perhaps 80-100 MPs and May supporters with 200 + MPs. Theoretically they are all in the same party but on the defining issue of the day, namely Brexit, they are mortal enemies.
Usual Tory troughers , always do the opposite of what they preach, greedy barstewards.
Top fact: The SNP has 35 MPs in Westminster, their total travel and accommodation costs for the last 12 months is £79,852. The Scottish Conservatives have 13 MPs in Westminster, their total travel and accommodation costs are £250,427.
Do you have a link to that?
It is on twitter so it is gospel, Scottp told me twitter was infallible Just trust me I am a doctor
You fell for fake news.
Ian Blackford spent £40k on travel and accommodation last year
Trump asked NATO to formally raise its target (5:16 p.m.)
“President Trump, who spoke, raised the question not just to reach 2%, today, but set a new target - 4%. He just left after he announced that,” Bulgarian president Rumen Radev told reporters, according to BNR public radio.
I think Trump is deliberately trying to make meeting the NATO target impossible.
That's an interesting possibility. If Trump is seeking to disrupt NATO, for whatever arcane reason, giving them impossible demands would be one way to do it. His position of urging Europeans to arm to the teeth against a possible foe (which presumably is Russia, who else?) while openly nourishing cordial ties with Putin is otherwise hard to explain. If people say sod off, we're not going to double our spending (as they will, in politer terms), he can start pulling back troops and say it was Europe's fault, which saves him money (or frees troops to deploy in Asia) and pleases Putin.
Does Trump really want Germany to increase defence spending? Because the way he's going about it seems designed to prevent it. The Chancellor of Germany cannot be seen to "give in" to shouted demands by the US President. It's like the Asian concept of face.
Well then Trump will withdraw more troops from Europe anyway and leave Germany and it's European allies to decide whether they can afford to hold off Putin with the armed forces they have if absolutely necessary
Trump's tirade to Stoltenberg about Germany's simultaneous dependence on Russian gas and American defence spending could be the beginning of an existential crisis for NATO.
Trump is right in principle, but hectoring people to do your bidding usually achieves the opposite result.
Oh yes, he is right, and it's about time this issue was more openly discussed. The combination of German support (via Schröder's chairmanship) of Putin's Nordstream project (gasline through the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea to Greifswald in Germany) bypassing Poland and Ukraine together with Merkel's crazy "green" policies of discontinuing coal and nuclear comprise a clear strategic threat to Western Europe.
Actually, no they don't.
Western Europe is more energy independent now than at any time in the last 40 years. The combination of Norway, LNG, alternative power sources, and lower energy demand mean it is imports only around 30% of its calories now, compared to around 50% at the start of the 1970s, and the number is falling every year. (It's even falling in Germany.)
Well it is clear that Germany has achieved an amazing switch to renewable sources and away from dependence on fossile and nuclear energy, but where does the baseload come from if coal and nuclear are in desuetude? Gas it must be, and German dependence on Nordstream looks pretty stark to me.
Trump asked NATO to formally raise its target (5:16 p.m.)
“President Trump, who spoke, raised the question not just to reach 2%, today, but set a new target - 4%. He just left after he announced that,” Bulgarian president Rumen Radev told reporters, according to BNR public radio.
I think Trump is deliberately trying to make meeting the NATO target impossible.
I think that even the US might find it hard to meet 4%.
Most NATO countries would not have the native industrial capacity to meet such an increase, and would have to buy lots of expensive kit from abroad. I wonder which country would have the most to gain from such an arrangement?
France.
I'd put the countries that would benefit the most: 1) The US. 2) The UK. 3) France. 4) Sweden. 5) Germany.
Comments
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1017082077202837504
NEW THREAD
The rest of us are caught in the middle.
Conspiracy theory? Perhaps.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5942419/Theresa-dodges-Donald-trump-handshake-Nato.html
1) The US.
2) The UK.
3) France.
4) Sweden.
5) Germany.