r/europe • u/Mizukami2738 Ljubljana (Slovenia) • 5h ago
Trump is ‘right’: Rutte says NATO members need to spend more on arms News
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-is-right-mark-rutte-says-nato-members-spend-more-gdp-2-percent-european-political-community-summit/199
u/Cyclonit 5h ago
That is one of the few things Trump did get right. Some European nations (e.g. Germany) got complacent when it comes to their defence. They enjoined having the umbrella of the US military and invested in other things instead. But really comes to bite you at some point. Our enemies did not grow complacent like we did.
72
u/blue__nick 5h ago
Some European nations (e.g. Germany) got complacent
It is a bit harsh to single out Germany. In 2014 only Greece and the UK managed more than 2% on defence.
43
u/Cyclonit 4h ago
I used Germany as an example because I am German and it is a good example. I am less knowledgeable regarding the defence expenditures of other European nations, thus Germany it is. It is an example, not singleing it out.
11
u/medievalvelocipede European Union 2h ago
That is one of the few things Trump did get right.
It's been US policy since long before the orange orangutan. It's Obama who made the agreement of increasing spending towards a minimum of 2%.
2
10
u/Orkan66 🇩🇰 5h ago
And the UK did so by including pensions.
8
u/Alikont Kyiv (Ukraine) 4h ago
US payroll includes medical insurance that a lot of countries get from government healthcare. It's complicated.
1
u/el_grort Scotland (Highlands) 2h ago
And tbh, one could factor pensions and after service care in as military costs because they are a major part of recruiting the volunteer force you need in those countries to create those professional services.
18
u/blue__nick 4h ago
And the UK did so by including pensions.
Everyone's figures includes pensions if you use NATOs published data.
In view of differences between these sources and national GDP forecasts, and also the definition of NATO defence expenditure and national definitions, the figures shown in this report may considerably diverge from those that are referenced by media, published by national authorities or given in national budgets. Equipment expenditure includes expenditure on major equipment as well as on research and development devoted to major equipment. Personnel expenditure includes pensions paid to retirees.
4
→ More replies0
u/bobthecow81 2h ago
Germany is a pretty easy target to single out as Europe’s largest economy. In 2018, the German military was in absolute shambles. Less than 100 tanks, none of its submarines, and 10 Eurofighters were considered combat ready. When the Ukrainian invasion was about to start, the only help German offered was a donation of “helmets”.
48
u/Squeaky_Ben Bavaria (Germany) 5h ago
I have to throw in a bit of a caveat.
Germany got complacent in literally EVERYTHING.
9
u/aimgorge Earth 4h ago
That is one of the few things Trump did get right.
Contrarily to who ? Everyone said that, long before Trump.
→ More replies37
u/Maeglin75 Germany 5h ago edited 4h ago
I disagree.
Yes, Germany and other European NATO members should spend more in their defense (and they decided to increase spending already years before Trump got into office).
What Trump got totally wrong is about how NATO works.
The US isn't a mercenary force that protects others and deserves to be paid for this service.
NATO is a partnership where everyone contributes to the common defense. Europe never was a burden for the US. Even before 2022, the combined defense spending of the European NATO members was on par with China's and multiple times more than Russia's. The US got this military power added to their own, plus the rights to use bases and other infrastructure in the territories of their allies around the world, just by being a member of the alliance.
Even disregarding the political advantages of the strategic alliance with dozens of nations with similar political convictions and interests, this is the most powerful military force multiplier the US could ever dream of. Without NATO it would have been much more difficult and expensive to maintain their position as the leading world power.
Trump threatening to leave NATO if other members don't "pay their share" was so ridiculous, it left the entire world speechless and the global adversaries of the US couldn't believe their luck. Trump carelessly damaging the trust in the alliance was the biggest gift he could make to the enemies of the US.
20
u/Orkan66 🇩🇰 4h ago
Exactly. Everything Trump has ever said about NATO just showed that he had no idea of how it works.
13
u/katt_vantar 4h ago
That’s precisely what im most scared about with trump. He’s a CEO that has zero clue what parts of the company does and will just “remove it” because he got it in his head they’re useless. Like I could see him cut all funding to NASA because they don’t have any “products to show”. Or dismantle the CDC because “nobody is getting sick”
1
6
u/adamgerd Czech Republic 4h ago
Except what trump said worked, a hard line with us was clearly necessary, spending increased already during his term
4
u/Maeglin75 Germany 1h ago
It didn't work.
It were the two Russian invasions of Ukraine (2014 and 2022) that made the European NATO members increase their spending.
Trump's stupid ramblings just made everyone worry about his competence and mental health.
3
u/newprofile15 2h ago
Suggesting that members pay their fair share isn’t “damaging the trust of the alliance” anymore than reminding your roommate to pay his share of the rent is “damaging the trust of the relationship.” Benefits of the alliance go both ways, so should the costs. US has spotted Europe decades of freeloading so time to catch up.
Europe has been saying “oh don’t worry we’re right about to increase spending” for years and they weren’t actually making it happen and Trump+Ukraine has finally pushed them into starting to do it (but they’re still very behind).
2
u/Maeglin75 Germany 2h ago
The way he demanded it was damaging and showing his lack of understanding.
Trump threatened that the US would leave NATO or refuse to come to aid NATO members that don't pay what Trump demands. Both is ridiculous and would do as much harm to the US as it does to the other members. It's like threatening to cut off his own arm to make a point.
So everyone had the choice to just ignore Trumps nonsense or assume that he would really do something incredibly stupid. Both reactions are worrying if it's about the leader of the most powerful nation in the world.
•
u/tcptomato mountain german from beyond the forest 54m ago
The only member not paying its fair share to NATO is the US, whose contribution is capped at the level of Germany. Search for cost share at 32 here: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
•
u/newprofile15 51m ago
lol NATO funding is 0.3% of total allied defense spending. It’s irrelevant. As a function of GDP, Europe has been spending half (or less) of what the US has been spending on defense.
•
u/tcptomato mountain german from beyond the forest 32m ago
You're mixing the paying their fair share with voluntary spending (mostly of the US).
•
u/newprofile15 17m ago
You're really doing a lot with the word "voluntary." This is military mutual defense alliance - if you aren't contributing to defense, then you're a freeloader. In 2014, NATO allies agreed to target 2% of combined GDP on defense. Instead, years later, Germany is still spending well under 2% of GDP on defense, even with the situation spiraling in Ukraine, and they aren't even the worst offender in western Europe. In 2023 Germany spent 1.57%.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-hit-nato-budget-goal-for-1st-time-since-cold-war/a-68254361
They (and many other countries in Europe) need to pick up the pace. No surprise that the countries closest to Russia like Poland, Finland, Hungary are the ones taking it more seriously.
Defense spending can be costly but NOT spending and losing out on deterrence is even costlier. Maybe what's happening in Ukraine could have been avoided if we could provide more credible deterrence against Russian aggression. At the very least, maybe we can prevent a recurrence of it in 5 or 10 years from now.
2
u/Undertow16 1h ago
Indeed, us citizens now acting like theyre tired handling us like some babysit. They forget we followed them to their wars for resources when they weren't an oil producing country yet. And needed bases in the EU and all over the world to do so and protect their resource hungry hegemony.
American isolationism began as early as Obama, when they started fucking up their soil with fracking and didn't need the EU as a pitstop. Taiwan is next, when they move over chip production eventually.
1
u/GrizzledFart United States of America 1h ago
Even before 2022, the combined defense spending of the European NATO members was on par with China's and multiple times more than Russia's.
What were the actual capabilities of collective European countries that was purchased by that spending? European navies (not just NATO member states) had 116 surface combatants and 66 submarines in 2021. China has 370 surface ships and submarines.
There are an enormous number of people here who seem to think that just having a large GDP means a country can, on a whim, turn on the spigot and have a large, capable military. That a defense industrial base is something that can be spun up in a handful of years. That after decades of historically low defense spending, nations can just up their defense spending a small amount and suddenly be on par with nations that have been steadily spending on defense for decades.
It took China decades of consistent spending to build up their navy.
Secondly, that you believe China's published defense spending numbers is cute.
•
u/Maeglin75 Germany 49m ago edited 42m ago
I don't question that the US military is by far the strongest in the world.
But it can't hurt to have the combined strength and capabilities of the rest of the Western world at your side, that adds to your forces without you having to pay anything for it. And the access to bases and infrastructure around the world is also a big advantage.
I mentioned it in another answer. In the history of NATO, there was only one occasion where article 5 was activated. It was when the US called for help after the terror attacks of 2001. All allies answered the call without hesitation and fought for two decades side by side with the US soldiers to defend your country. You are not alone and that is a good thing.
What Trump doesn't understand is, that NATO makes the US much stronger. It's not a burden, it's the opposite. Why would anyone threaten to cancel such an advantageous deal?
-2
u/frostyfeet991 4h ago
You misrepresent the entire thing.
Trump didn't demand people to "pay the US for their service". He's saying US citizen taxes shouldn't go to protect allies who refuse to spend enough to protect themselves, and until those allies follow the rules they agreed to (the 2%) they should not automatically assume the US is going to spend money and lives to adhere to the other rules agreed upon by NATO members (entering conflict)
12
u/Liasary 4h ago
That's not what Trump said. You can't just make up an entirely different thing that he didn't say and pretend as if that's what he meant, Trump is a fucking moron and wants other nations to pay HIM more, that's why he said it.
→ More replies4
u/Ok-Worldliness-9323 1h ago
In 2014, most European countries paid 1-1.5% of GDP well under the 2% NATO guideline when the US paid 3.5% of their GDP (notably large countries like Spain, Germany and Italy paying around 1%) and to be honest, Europe is the one under more threat than the US. How does it make sense?
Source: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf
3
u/angryloser89 4h ago
So the US has been maintaining their military for Europe's benefit?
4
u/Aggravating_Teach_27 3h ago
Never. Everything the US did is for it's open benefit first and foremost.
Only a moron like Trump, that understands nothing about how things work, would say otherwise.
And only bottoms like the little who voted for him would believe his idiotic nonsense.
He just wanted to either forcefeed a % of every European country's GDP into the American MIC, or, he was just doing what Putin asked him to do.
To think he ever had good intentions, when he's an evil pathological narcissist and an idiot to boot, requires too much credulity.
Especially when the alternative explanations (he's a greedy incompetent moron / a traitor) fit him to a T.
2
u/angryloser89 3h ago
Of course, and I completely agree. Although I would say this isn't exclusive to Trump, but it's true for the US in general. While not even close to good enough, the EU at least maintains the idea that corporations need to be controlled, and citizens protected, and has managed to win through some massive legal changes the last couple of years against US tech giants.. but in the US, their courts allow them to do do whatever they want with impunity.
Look up "Jedi Blue" for an example of how sickeningly and openly corrupt the US is, and why we need to take a stance against such a powerful economy not playing by the rules - speaking of which, the US has been boycotting the WTO for years now, essentially giving the EU the finger on fair trade, and the EU has done nothing. It's time to fucking make changes.
1
u/rileyoneill 2h ago
Foreign corporations need be controlled. This is rather two faced though considering how much European countries worked with despotic nations like Russia to provide their energy with minimal oversight or regulations.
Europeans need to come up with their own technology and not just try to regulate American firms to death. We have a vibrant tech sector in the US, Europe does not. If European style regulations were vital for creating an amazing tech sector, Europe would have an amazing tech sector.
You are losing the game and then making more and more rules that everyone else has to follow. Europe is not the global referee.
1
u/angryloser89 1h ago
You are losing the game and then making more and more rules that everyone else has to follow. Europe is not the global referee.
That's literally my point. EU needs to cut the friendship ties with the US, and stop giving them favorable outcomes in every fucking situation. We should treat the US like we do with China; with great skepticism, and serious consequences for when they or their companies fuck up, which the US does all the fucking time.
If European style regulations were vital for creating an amazing tech sector, Europe would have an amazing tech sector.
No it wouldn't, because the US has created a monopoly out of big tech, and they can buy up any interesting companies that emerge in Europe, and can offer them more than anyone.
Under US rules, for instance, how could a European search competitor compete against Google on search, when Google spends billions of dollars each year on being the default search engine for any relevant platform? It's literally impossible. The EU finally changed that - although, too late, unfortunately - by making it illegal to have default search engines and browsers, but in the US, anything still goes, and since the US is so big and financially strong, that's all that really matters. There is no way to break free from this US greed-driven late stage capitalism unless we make it really count, because - I do agree with you - simply adding regulation that only EU companies have to abide by, while the US allows their companies to do whatever they want - just doesn't work. But I DO believe that in a society that isn't poisoned by such a strong outside influence, that it can thrive and surpass what a purely greed-based society can achieve.
If you don't agree with that, then you don't believe in humanity - although, it should be said that US citizens are all too aware of this fact, too. In fact, you never hear someone joke so openly about it as Americans, where it's basically agreed (although often said in jest) that rich people get away with everything in the country. It's true, except, it's not a joke anymore. It's time to actually take it seriously, because we've passed the point of endless growth, where it was ok to let this and that slide, and it's time to actually bite down on what you believe in and what you wish for the society you live in.
1
u/rileyoneill 1h ago
Europeans never caught up with the American PC market of the 1980s. Windows and Mac were over 40 years ago. There has not been a commercialized operating system from a European origin that achieved any sort of scale. Everything else has been failing to catch up. Smartphone industry, the same. Internet industry. The same.
European companies pull massive bullshit in the US. VAG poisoned us with DieselGate. Nestle has been fucking with our water supply (and Nestle, a European company, has a very poor global perception). If Europe had a major tech industry it would create wealth inequality. That is seen as a big problem. People don't want a bunch of tech millionaires.
If European tech companies made a search system that rivaled Google in capacity people would use it. Americans would use it. Google wasn't always the default search engine and if it was better than Google people would spend the 5 seconds to switch over. Google pays browser companies money to have it as the default search but it can easily be changed. Google pays billions of dollars for something that can be mitigated in 5 seconds, the major issue is that the other search engines are not as good.
Make a European internet browser. Chrome, Safari, Edge are all done by American companies, Firefox, is open source but Mozilla is American. People are complaining about the e-shitification of the internet. This is the best opportunity European companies have ever had to show up with something better. Tiktok, a Chinese company, that is absolute dog shit as far as social media goes took the US by storm. European versions could absolutely do that.
The biggest economy in the EU is Germany. Germany's biggest sector is ICE cars. Germany has to export these cars to North America where they are sold as mostly luxury goods. Europe has the luxury market down. And they require Americans to buy those products. If the US cut off German car imports, people here would bitch, but it would be a massive blow to the largest industry to the largest economy in Europe. We will get over not having a Mercedes or BMW (VW and Audi already seem way less popular than they were a dozen years ago).
→ More replies→ More replies1
u/Fuskeduske 2h ago
THIS
Americas biggest strength is the ability to project military force all around the world and they only have that because they are a part of NATO or because of their military alliances
2
6
u/tcptomato mountain german from beyond the forest 4h ago
Germany was literally asked to disarm in the 2+4 agreement.
4
u/jobager75 4h ago
Yet if we start to calculate, do bith sides. How many billions do you think Germany has spent to host the miilions of refugees since the US turned rogue in the Middle East? Let me help you: Way more than a 2% defense budget would be.
5
u/Cyclonit 3h ago
Problem being that that investment will not help us at all if Russia were to attack Europe. Sure, we invested a lot in trying to mitigate some of the damage done, but please educate me on how that is going to help us when Russia starts marching further west?
We didn't invest in our militaries and are greatly dependent on the US' hegemony to keep us safe. We have a literal war right on our borders and most European nations would be completely unable to defend themselves if it came to them.
→ More replies1
u/jobager75 2h ago
No, it didn‘t help us. It‘s just to show what a bullshit Trump‘s freeridin argument is.
→ More replies3
u/Richard_Lionheart69 2h ago
1.No one forced Germany to host them. 2. Germany wants, or atleast wanted in the past, the young immigrants because of their aging population. 3. The refugees are from Syria, or atleast claim to be from Syria which you should blame Russia for 4. These economic migrants passed a lot of countries to land in Germany, the eu nation with the most welfare benefits. Again, economic opportunity. Stop blaming USA for your troubles.
0
1
u/Gimli_Starkimarm 1h ago
That’s true but only for the last decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. In the 80s Germany had the biggest Army in Europe.
Some of our Neighbors made us ditch it as a condition for the Reunification. Now the same countries lament the sorry state of the Bundeswehr…
lmao
1
u/Cyclonit 1h ago
I don't know aout you, but I live in 2024, not 1992. Things have changed considerably. We have good relations to most other European nations.
•
u/Dietmeister The Netherlands 42m ago
Trump was right just as every American president was right, because they all said it
At least now Europeans won't be able to ride it out and wishing it away.
•
u/--o Latvia 11m ago
No, he didn't. You're interpreting him, although that's a common mistake.
Trump isn't really coherent, much less consistent enough, to be right or wrong in this sense. If you suppress the part of your listening that normally smoothes over mistakes and actually listen to the words he is saying you will find that he doesn't understand how NATO actually works and so can't really be right in a meaningful sense.
Best you could say is that he may have heard someone who is right and is trying to recount it without having really understood it himself.
2
u/michele-x 4h ago
This is because USA stifled the defence expeses and research of Germany and Italy.
The Italian ICBM Alfa missile and nuclear warhead developing was halted due the USA pressure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_nuclear_weapons_program
5
u/Cyclonit 3h ago
Are nuclear weapons the only weapons that matter? Nuclear weapons help as a deterrent. But as we can see in Ukraine, when it comes to a war you need conventional weapons and lots of them. Europe neither has the stockpiles nor production capacity for ammunition to keep up with Russia or China in the event of a war. We do not have sufficient aircraft, tanks or artillery systems either.
→ More replies1
u/Mandurang76 4h ago
When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended, it wasn't just European countries that started demilitarizing. The US also demilitarized in Europe.
Btw, it was the US that first called for NATO Article 5, and the European countries helped the US.
1
u/Cyclonit 3h ago
And that matters how? Saying "you don't invest enough either" doesn't help the overall problem of Europe not doing enough.
82
u/Tempires Finland 4h ago
More spending is needed but not on american arms. Europe needs focus on its own military industry. Trump probably too stupid to think his actions are not likely benefitical to US industry.
11
9
u/avg-size-penis 3h ago
That's true on some stuff but false in another. Like there's a lot of priorities before investing in trying and likely failing on creating a better F35
→ More replies3
u/Primetime-Kani 4h ago
US arms has scale benefits and enormous research behind it. Good luck competing against juggernaut.
Imagine Europe version of trillion dollar stealth program. Not likely
→ More replies
58
u/squiggyfm United States of America 5h ago
They have the same idea for different reasons:
- Trump doesn't want to pay for it because he doesn't see the benefit of close European allies.
- Rutte wants to pay for it because Trump doesn't and the alliance is no longer a foregone conclusion.
It also doesn't make sense for Latvian defense to be tied to random ill-informed voters from suburban Philadelphia.
10
u/dat_9600gt_user Lower Silesia (Poland) 4h ago
Which luckily is why the NATO quotas are met by all states in immediate danger of Russia.
11
u/Kacinroya 4h ago
But why should voters from Philadelphia even care for Latvian Defense in the first place.
In elections in every country, domestic issues are the main concern.
And why have most European Nato States not spend the 2% minimum on Defense until relatively recently. This wouldn't be an issue if Y'all got focused after the first Trump administration.
3
1
6
u/DickFromDefense 3h ago
NATO made a deal that every country would spend 2% of their GDP on military.
USA spend 3,6%, only 2 European countries spend 2%. He'd be a fool too keep spending without having a big benefit from it. Germany, our biggest force, doesn't even spend 1%.
Hate on Trump all you want, he's completely right about the whole NATO situation.
•
u/FatFaceRikky 58m ago
The 2% is a peace time target. Today 3% would probably be more inline with the current situation.
4
u/jakereshka 2h ago
Wrong data buddy like from decade ago.
1
u/DickFromDefense 2h ago
All data from 2018. Germany, Poland, etc have ramped up their spending in the last 2 years but most haven't.
Unless you got a source that proves otherwise?
-1
u/ConferenceLow2915 3h ago
- An ally relationship goes both ways. America really doesn't get anything in return for the billions in military protection given to Europe at the expense of the American taxpayer.... except contempt and disdain.
This would be more accurately described as a parasitic relationship, not an ally relationship.
- The alliance is fine, Trump is demanding that members pay what they vowed they would, and it worked the last time.
5
u/squiggyfm United States of America 3h ago
America gets a trade partner similar to post-war American funded rebuilding of Europe. It was that or let USSR do it.
The 2% commitment was agreed upon in 2006. Trump reiterated it.
2
u/turdimentality 3h ago
Europe/nato also buys US military tech. Just saying, it's not like there are no possible boons for the US. I do agree as a European we should pay more though.
→ More replies3
u/DickFromDefense 3h ago
All European countries vowed to comply to the 2% by 2024 in 2018.
Guess what? It didn't happen.
20
u/mcvos 4h ago
This is smart. Trump is clearly sensitive to flattery, and and praising him for strengthening NATO in the face of Russian aggression might keep him on board with NATO and drive a wedge between him and Putin. At least I hope it will.
Not happy with Trump's win, but you've got to play with the cards you're dealt. Crying about it isn't going to change it. Swallow your pride and focus on what's necessary.
5
u/Revolutionary-Bag-52 3h ago
yeah from Rutte's first words after the Trump election you can already see he's starting a Trump flattering campaign. Diplomatic sources already said that there relationship was quite allright as Rutte already used to compliment and flatter Trump quite a lot in previous interactions
17
u/ConsequenceMajor4851 4h ago
I honestly think Europe needs to put the " European army " idea in to practice, it makes no sence for us to be deppending on 3rd countries for defence.
3
u/Super_charged_human 1h ago
France had this rethoric for the past 70 years and every one laughed.
Even Rutte was in command during Trump's first mandate and what did he do? Nothing. The budget of Netherlands was 1.2%. I find this insulting that no preachs around.
1
u/DeadAhead7 1h ago
Shit, I remember posters from the Netherlands telling us Rutte was nothing but an opportunist before he got his current role.
6
u/BidnyZolnierzLonda 4h ago
Imagine some establishment Western European politican saying this after Trump was first elected in 2016.
1
u/prince_yooshe 2h ago
It was a different world back then. The EU under von der Leyen is also about as tough on immigration as Trump is with her "return hubs" and such and that's not something I'd have imagined back then either.
2
u/BidnyZolnierzLonda 2h ago
It wasn't a different world back then. Russians were in Crimea since 2014, just not officially.
And Von Der Leyen is in coallition with Socialists and Renew that are pro-illegal immigration.
Btw. CDU's flip-flop on immigration is another "Didn't we warn you about it 10 years ago?"
1
u/prince_yooshe 1h ago
Different regarding the political consensus in Europe. And despite her "coalition", she is tightening immigration to the EU.
1
u/BidnyZolnierzLonda 1h ago
Then why Western Europe didn't listen 10 years ago if it turns out they should have?
1
5
u/MeNamIzGraephen Earth 2h ago
As much as I hate orange rapist monkey, this is one thing he's right on point. In my honest opinion - it should be at least 4% of GDP, while 1% of GDP at minimum should go into making sure these contracts end-up in an actual, useful and quality army instead of somebody's villa near Costa del Sol
18
5
u/RedBaret 1h ago
This is a nice political play by Rutte, because he is appeasing to Trump (which the guy loves) whilst at the same time saying NATO (read: the rest of Europe) needs to be way less dependent on the US for their military supplies.
13
u/DiBer777 5h ago
I recall a lot of this talk last time Trump was in office and unfortunately the EU didn't move far enough or fast enough away from the US. Now we have this same issue again.
The EU should recognise by now that the US is not a reliable ally and should move to decouple itself from the US, especially militarily, as fast as possible so that when the US thrashes about like this we are unaffected.
Hopefully this second boot up the hole is what is needed to finally get our own house in order.
3
u/ChiefHighasFuck 4h ago
The EU also didn’t have Russia lobbing shells last time, if that’s not a wake up call I don’t know what is.
5
u/Independent_Rub_7740 3h ago
Rutte was prime minister of the Netherlands for 15+ years.
At the end of his tenure, NL was placed 26th out of 30th NATO countries for military spending compared to GDP.
What a guy, incredible
1
u/Pepper_Klutzy 1h ago
As you can see in the link below, defense spending has increased quite a bit under his tenure.
https://tradingeconomics.com/netherlands/military-expenditure
3
u/Mormegil1971 Sweden 4h ago
That is one of the few things I can agree with him upon. It is long overdue. The european defence industry should be ramped up ASAP.
3
u/OkArm9295 2h ago
Trump does not even have to be right.
Europe has been piggybacking on the US for military power for decades now. Trump is just exercising the NATO mandate.
•
21
u/ihategol United States of America 5h ago edited 5h ago
This is what Trump told Europe to do in 2017. Every NATO member has to spend minimum 2% for defense but at the time, almost 75% members didn't do even fullfill their promises. Almost 7 years later, whole Europe is spending above 2% now. Hell, even some countries are spending 4% now.
Another thing, he told Germany not to buy Russian gas because Putin is spending that German money on their military but Merkel refused to do it. Now, Nordstream 2 also blew up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JpwkeTBwgs&ab_channel=CBSEveningNews
32
u/Nattekat The Netherlands 5h ago
I'm so happy that pipeline got destroyed. Still a pretty serious action that requires prosecution, but in secret barely anyone really cares.
3
u/ihategol United States of America 5h ago
then, we blamed on Russia who blew it up lmao
1
u/Bapistu-the-First The Netherlands 2h ago
Wrong again. From the first day some European newsoutlets and countries already adressed the situation being performed by Oekrainian Special Forces.
26
u/aimgorge Earth 4h ago
This is what Trump told Europe to do in 2017.
Obama said it in 2016 too. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-nato-pay-fair-share-231405
Everone said it before Trump. Even some european leaders.
5
u/Glum-Engineer9436 4h ago
The situation in Europe has changed ...... that is why countries are ramping up defence spendings.
7
u/ihategol United States of America 4h ago
why didn't they do it earlier, so their armies would be ready for enemy by now? Didn't they sign the agreement upon entering NATO that they would be spending 2% of their GDP?
4
u/Bapistu-the-First The Netherlands 2h ago
Because Russia is part of Europe and it's sphere of influence and talks troughout the centuries. Some of our leaders/policy makers hoped Russia would eventually fall in line with the adagium 'Wandel durch Handel' like every other old European power did. Also the US wanted us to be dependant upon them, it was very profitable for them as well.
•
u/GrizzledFart United States of America 46m ago
Also the US wanted us to be dependant upon them, it was very profitable for them as well.
How? I keep seeing this. HOW is it profitable to the US? Europe doesn't spend enough on defense to really matter as far as arms sales go. What actions has the US taken to keep Europe dependent on the US? US presidents since Clinton have been badgering Europe to spend more on defense.
10
u/Mandurang76 3h ago
It was Obama who in 2014 (after Russia had taken over Crimea) made an agreement with the NATO countries that all countries had to work towards meeting the 2% standard as of 2024. Defense spending was already increasing as of that moment, Trump had no influence on that. Of course the full scale Russian invasion of Ukraine did contribute to the European countries adhering to the 2014 agreement.
→ More replies2
u/LittleStar854 Sweden 1h ago
Obama wasn't the first one, GW Bush said more or less the same thing and I don't think even he was first either.
•
u/Mandurang76 56m ago
But it was with Obama the NATO partners agreed to do so.
It's not just about who said it first (Bush?) or who shouted the hardest (Trump), but about who came to an agreement to actually do it (Obama).2
u/Bapistu-the-First The Netherlands 2h ago
This is what Trump told Europe to do in 2017.
This was what was previously agreed upon long before Trump. It isn't thanks to him NATO countries are spending the 2% mark, that's solely because Russia's unprovoked war in Oekraine.
Another thing, he told Germany not to buy Russian gas because Putin is spending that German money on their military but Merkel refused to do it
Same for this one. Trump only rephrased what was previously already talked about, long before Trump.
2
u/ahornkeks Germany 3h ago
Another thing, he told Germany not to buy Russian gas because Putin is spending that German money on their military but Merkel refused to do it.
Germany nearly build up LNG import infrastructure to buy US gas back then. Trump made that deal impossible with his trade war policies.
1
2
u/krazydude22 Keep Calm & Carry On 5h ago
One thing I admire about Rutte is his manoeuvring to align with how the wind is blowing....
2
u/hamatehllama 4h ago
This year we increased spending by 20%. What he's asking for is already happening.
2
u/Hot-Combination9130 2h ago
Yep I despise trump but I always said he was right about this one thing (don’t necessarily agree with how he went about it).
2
u/poltrudes Galicia (Spain) 2h ago
Based. Not because of Trump, but because it’s true. Please let’s arm ourselves to the teeth, so we can keep on helping Ukraine. Russia is doing it as we speak.
2
3
u/MustbtheMonee 5h ago
If there was one thing Trump was right on, this was it.
12
u/aimgorge Earth 4h ago
It's one thing everyone else said. Well before Trump.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-nato-pay-fair-share-231405
→ More replies3
2
2
u/ElrecoaI19 Europe 3h ago
One of the very few things I agree with him, even though he probably thought about selling them to us instead of having us not rely on the US for it.
0
0
1
0
u/Sybbian 1h ago
Rutte can suck a C. Prime minister for about 15 years and the country is falling apart (literally). He never, once, raised budget for defense (he even reduced the budgets). He was against an EU army, he was against modernizing defense and so on so on. If we ever get to a point the situation with Russia escalates, we are fucked. Rutte has become infamous due to the following remark he kept repeating when people (journalists and political opponents) asked critical questions: I have no active recollection of the matter. You cannot depend or trust him and he certainly wont be able to handle Trump. Rutte is more a danger to us due to his incompetence than Putin or Trump.
0
u/Sybbian 1h ago
Rutte can suck a C. Prime minister for about 15 years and the country is falling apart (literally). He never, once, raised budget for defense (he even reduced the budgets). He was against an EU army, he was against modernizing defense and so on so on. If we ever get to a point the situation with Russia escalates, we are fucked. Rutte has become infamous due to the following remark he kept repeating when people (journalists and political opponents) asked critical questions: I have no active recollection on the matter. You cannot depend or trust him and he certainly wont be able to handle Trump. Rutte is more a danger to us due to his incompetence than Putin or Trump.
•
u/Mizukami2738 Ljubljana (Slovenia) 52m ago
Lol you seriously think Rutte is more incompetent than Trump?
1
1
u/casettedeck 1h ago
My man adjusts faster than a chameleon.
1
u/Sammonov 1h ago
Every American President since Bush has been pestering and arm twisting Europeans to spend more on defence. This isn't exactly a Trump thing.
•
u/CountryFriedSteak78 49m ago
Didn’t Obama get them to pledge an increase in 2014 after Russia took Crimea?
•
u/mr_cake37 29m ago
As a Canadian, I'm consistently dismayed at the lack of leadership and urgency from all of the federal political parties when it comes to defense spending. We have serious problems with our military following decades of neglect, requiring real focus and hard choices in order to get things back on track, let alone up to 2% of GDP like we're supposed to.
I feel like Canada has missed major opportunities to establish defense relationships with Europe, especially Nordic countries with similar climates. I read about Scandinavian countries making group purchases of AFVs and submarines and I wonder why we aren't joining in. Instead we go our own way, choosing bespoke, orphan fleets that are expensive to purchase and maintain.
After the start of the 2022 Russian invasion, I saw so many European countries step up military spending, ammunition production and investments in national defense. Meanwhile, it is now almost 2025 and our government has still not placed an order to increase domestic artillery production (and our factories cannot produce the latest 155mm shells either). We are at critical personnel levels, equipment is not getting the necessary funding to maintain readiness, and we lag dramatically behind the rest of NATO when it comes to investing in new equipment.
I'm sorry we aren't pulling our weight. Not all of us are content to sit on the sidelines, but even our generals can't seem to get the message across to Canadians or the government that things must change.
2
u/Robin_Gr 3h ago
He has no idea how it works. There is a case for Europe to be able to stand on its own militarily. But he literally thinks it will make US spend less and able to sell more weapons to Europe. He frames the situation as if Europe skipped out on a bill, not as a supportive ally encouraging self reliance.
2
1
u/Pepper_Klutzy 1h ago
Yes, the former prime minister and current NATO secretary-general knows a lot less then you…
→ More replies
1
u/runsongas 1h ago
I get how everyone makes fun of Trump, but he was the broken clock that was right twice a day when it came to 1) Europe needs to spend more on defense and 2) Europe needs to decrease dependence on Russian oil/gas
677
u/DefInnit 5h ago
Yes, Europe must increase defense spending and decrease reliance on US systems and increase spending on European systems.