Watch other NATO leaders grimace as Trump claims they owe money


Originally published at:


HAHAHAH my roommies looked just like this when I told them they had to put up the $300 each for the electric bill after they cranked up the A/C for the month of July last year!


“the world could use less military spending”

Yep, and if Trump would announce tomorrow the withdrawal of all American military personnel from the countries led by the grimace contingent, It would be the first thing he’s done which I would support 100 percent.


Time says that 5 NATO members meet their spending requirements.

On the one hand, I think it would be a major step in human evolution if we could all recognize that violence is bad.

On the other hand, they all signed the deal. If they don’t want to keep their end of the bargain, maybe they should exit NATO.

It would be a lot easier to be scornful of all this if Russia wasn’t so aggressive these days. The Estonians sure don’t take it lightly.


Do you mean the deal where they agreed to aim for two percent in 2024 or some other deal?






Graaaaah! :stuck_out_tongue:

The term is ‘couldn’t care less’. Saying they could care less is saying that they do care, even if just a little… /rant over


Well, they’re all grownups who understand that money isn’t the only measure of value and who understand the details of what their countries do and don’t include under the term “defence spending.” These are the reactions of adults being lectured by an 11-year-old.

If this man-child was truly worried about unfairness to the American taxpayer he would reduce military spending toward the target of 2% of GDP (it’s currently over 3.6%) and apply the funds to more constructive purposes. Instead, he intends to raise it.

That’s certainly Putin’s preferred outcome, which is why his fanboi (on the earlier advice of the best, most luxurious aides like Flynn and Page and Manafort) suggests it as well. Then he can go grab the Baltics.


Back on topic, isn’t part of the problem that 2% of GDP is a particularly silly target in the first place. The defensive needs of a NATO country don’t scale with the size of the economy. Did it suddenly take less spending to ensure that Russian tanks didn’t start rolling into Estonia in 2009 as opposed to 2008, because American mortgage lending had tanked the world economy?


Or, since the low-payers are the majority of the organization, perhaps they can just change the rule to suit them. The 2% figure is fairly arbitrary, after all.

But even if you could get them to raise their spending to 2%, who’s Trump fooling when he implies that he’ll be able to reduce the military budget? First, he doesn’t want to do that, like, at all; and second, like the article says:

the rest of NATO’s members combined spent less than half of what the U.S. budgeted (in absolute terms)

The US is feeling zero pressure from the shortfall, whatever it is in absolute figures.


The North Atlantic Treaty of 1949. That’s where the requirement originally comes from, and it was supposed to be happening all along.


Thank you Jaffa the Hut: some complete idiots in Ireland* think we should join NATO. Now that we know we will be shook down, that won’t look so damn enticing.

*unfortunately including members of the ruling party. But then, they are the closest we have to a fascist tradition…


I read that less than grimaces and more of a “Is this fucking clown joking?”


mothereffer is trying to sell the idea that the obscene amount the US spends on defense/offense is not only necessary but represents a selfless act of altruism (up until now that is!), when the reality is their effed up economy actually depends on it.


In no universe is this a requirement. Nor does the 2%GDP target represent a value chosen in 1949.

The US, by far, is the primary beneficiary of NATO. It allowed the US to turn Europe into satellite states during the Cold War. It allows the US to use Europe as a staging point for operations in the Middle East and North Africa. I think many NATO countries hear Trump’s rhetoric and say, “Well… what has NATO done for us lately?”


I get why Poland and Estonia might want to maintain NATO. But doesn’t France just exit. They are still protected from attack by geography, and they don’t need to pretend to be working towards the spending target. Put France First!


Would you mind pointing out where exactly?


Somebody needs to get their stupid jaw clipped:


From an interview on ABC’s “This Week,” 03/2016
TRUMP: I think NATO is obsolete.