Report: Trudeau Defies Trump at NATO Meeting, Cuts Military Spending

[DonViejo]

Source: Newsweek



David Brennan 1 hr ago

New figures show that Canadian military spending will be cut significantly, even as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prepares to face U.S. President Donald Trump’s demands for higher NATO military spending at the alliance's summit in Brussels.

According to the CBC, Canada will spend around 1.23 percent of its GDP on defense in 2018, down from 1.36 percent last year. This is far below the 2 percent target set for NATO members, which has been a particular bugbear for the American president.

Canadian National Defence spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier said the drop in investment was largely down to one-off payments. One was a retroactive pay increase for service members and the other was a $1.3 billion payment into the fund that pays out servicemember pensions.

In a statement carried by CBC, Le Bouthillier said, “Canada continues to place a premium on tangible operational contributions as well as on demonstrating a commitment and capacity to deploy and sustain personnel in support of the NATO alliance.”



Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/report-trudeau-defies-trump-at-nato-meeting-cuts-military-spending/ar-AAzV0Zn?ocid=spartanntp

[Dan]

1. And so it begins

The Allies are starting to fight back against the Russian agent working as the American president.

[yallerdawg]

2. "Welcome to the biglys, jackass!"

What goes around, comes around - and this lone, single individual with delusions of grandeur is going to make all of us pay for his derangement.

[pangaia]

5. REPUBLICANS.. We need to blame REPUBLICANS !!!

REPUBLICANS are "going to make all of us pay for his derangement."

[Achilleaze]

8. Yes, the republicans are at the root of the rot

[MosheFeingold]

3. While I appreciate anyone sticking it to Trump

NATO is supposed to be a partnership. One of the preset rules is 2% GDP spending on military.

It's not fair for US to consistently overpay.

And Trump is not alone about this. We've been bitching about this (or its functional pre-NATO equivalent) since Truman.

There's not an glimmer of sunlight between Trump's position and Obama's position (or Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc).

The only difference is Trump is an ass.

[DonViejo]

9. The rule was established four years ago and countries were given 10 years to bring their spending

in line with the agreement:

NATO Members Post New Defense-Spending Increase By Jonathan Stearns

March 15, 2018, 7:49 AM EDT Updated on March 15, 2018, 10:27 AM EDT

-snip-

In 2014, NATO members pledged to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense by 2024. In Europe, only Estonia, Greece and the U.K. achieved the goal last year. Poland, one of Europe’s fastest-growing economies, was at 1.99 percent.

The target will be met by eight NATO countries in 2018 and by at least 15 alliance members by 2024, according to Stoltenberg.

The 29-nation alliance is seeking to bolster its abilities to address a range of security threats including Russian meddling in eastern Europe, Islamic terrorism and cyber attacks. NATO is upgrading its command structure for the first time since the end of the Cold War, adding a command center focused on maritime security in the Atlantic and a center responsible for troop movements in Europe.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-15/nato-members-post-new-defense-spending-rise-amid-trump-pressure

[MosheFeingold]

11. Not exactly

The percentage has been part of the NATO treaty since inception.

The specific target spending is a moving target.

[DonViejo]

14. Yes, exactly. An agreement was entered into four years ago and participants were given ten

years to bring their spending in line with the agreement.

[MosheFeingold]

18. No, exactly

An agreement to spend a certain % is part of the founding NATO regulations.

The only thing "new" is much of Europe (excluding some notable partners) has been in default of the floating percentage for decades, such that Obama set targets for them to catch up.

[Larrybanal]

10. we do this

no one is forcing america to have the largest military equal to most of the largest countries combined...we do it to show our might

[MosheFeingold]

13. Maybe

I think it mainly has to do with Putin being a truly dangerous person who has shown the tendency to invade neighboring countries.

The world is a scary place, with several powerful countries run by really bad people, intent on causing you harm, simply because you are not under their thumb.

To think otherwise is naive.

[atreides1]

22. Take a look.

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-military-personnel-deployments-country/


The US currently has troops deployed in 177 countries...many of which don't have to fear being invaded by either the Russians,the Chinese, or the North Koreans.

Who really wants to invade Somalia or Djibouti?

https://www.worldblaze.in/countries-with-the-highest-military-budget/


And with Trump in charge, the US is slowly becoming one of those countries run by really bad people, who want to put its own citizens under the thumb of religious fanatics and the rich!!!!

[Demit]

23. Touche.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

27. House Atreides....

The spice is the key. More Spice Melange.

[Eyeball_Kid]

33. The ballooning US military budget is a JOBS PROGRAM.

The US spends billions on military overkill to feed the economies of states in need of federal dollars to keep afloat. When we hear about those "red states" getting more in federal dollars than they send back to DC, THIS is how it's done. Red states live off the military budget. Lots of jobs, lots of spending.

[karynnj]

20. It doesn't make the US overpay -- do you tthink if every NATO country increased their military

budget, we would decrease ours? I get the goal -- which is to have many countries with well funded militaries so they can respond. However, didfferent countries helped in different ways in the fight against ISIS and in Afghanistan. Trump is looking just at the percent of GDP spent on the military.

I did follow the NATO conferences in the Obama years - and did see Obama and his administration bring up the goal. One difference was that Europe was slower to recover from the 2008 crash than the US was and in the later years were dealing far more intensively with the refugee crisis. Those costs are not counted as military spending - nor was ours.

[lapfog_1]

28. That is a lie

"It's not fair for US to consistently overpay. "

there is not a general "pot" into which each NATO member is to pay 2% of GDP nor has the USA been paying for members who don't contribute to the non-existent pot.

The USA has not and will not pay MORE for defense spending because NATO members fail to spend 2% (or any percent) of GDP on their own defense.

This is a lie that Trump is pushing... part of the "Europe is taking advantage of the US" victim hood that Trump pushes to his MAGAT supporters. Do NOT fall for it.

[True Blue American]

29. I agree

And Canada is not doing many favors by cutting even more than 2%.

That plays right into Trumps hands.

Even many Democrats are angry that other countries are not paying their fair share.

Trudeau only strengthened Trumps hand.

[MosheFeingold]

30. Yeah, I don't think many people understand

This is one of Obama's smart policies --- that Trump continued. The only thing new is Trump's boorish delivery.

It's one of the few good things Cheeto kept.

[MGKrebs]

38. "cutting even more than 2%". This is not true.

Canada is still committed to meeting the 2% by the agreed upon deadline. There were a couple of one-time expenses last year that inflated last year's number. That's all.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4324547/canada-spending-less-defence-nato-report/

The only ones playing into Trumps hand are those who repeat these things from who-knows-what sources.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/07/12/trudeau-bills-pre-existing-defence-plan-as-answer-to-trumps-nato-spending-call.html

And it's not like Canada is desperately in imminent need of NATO's help to stem the encroachment of Greenland.

[Whiskeytide]

35. We don't "overpay". That's ...

... the con here. Please don’t fall for his crap.

It’s a requirement that these other countries spend enough to have a military that can be of use in a crisis. Somewhere along the way it was decided that 2% was the number.

But - We spend what we spend. We don’t spend more if they fail to hit that target. It just means that if a disaster or conflict breaks out that requires NATO military intervention, some of these other countries will not have the resources to sustain their contributions. It’s a problem to be addressed, but to characterize it as ripping off the US in some way is bullshit.

But here’s the thing. We do all of this - spend what we spend... always be the big player in a crisis - not to support NATO really. We do it for the relationships we have with the other members. We depend on that network of intelligence, trade and access - and they depend on us to carry most of the water when the shit hits the fan. It’s a little manufactured and trite, but it kind of comes down to they respect us and therefore they are our allies in all things.

This is not at all about who spends what. It’s Trump destroying that standing and those relationships. He’s doing it because he’s a fucking moron who does what he’s told by Putin. Putin is telling him to do it because he wants to decrease our standing in the world.

[montanacowboy]

4. And Canada says

Take that. I admire a country that thinks more about a pay increase for service members and a pension fund than making the freak of a president happy. You go Canada!

[Larrybanal]

6. largest military our idea

we have the largest military (by far) because we want to run the world...nato does not ask us to have the worlds largest military equal to n the next 7 largest countries military

[LittleGirl]

34. It's amazing to me that less than

1% of our country has HALF of all of our funding.
Meaning that the MIC skims 50-60% of our GDP for guns, war and occupations.

[nycbos]

7. If only we had a grownup as president who treated our allies as allies.

I am sure we could have pursauded NATO members that given the current challenges with Russia that it would be in their interest to spend more on defense.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Headline is FALSE. Canada will increase military spending 70% after one year drop (not "cut").

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/whats-happening-to-canadas-defence-spending-harjit-sajjan-responds/

The 2017 Fall Economic Statement identified the fiscal impact of our policy. Over the next six years, National Defence will receive $6.5 billion in new cash funding, and $62.3 billion over the next 20 years. As clearly indicated in Strong, Secure, Engaged, Canada will increase annual defence spending to $32.7 billion over the next ten years—an increase of over 70 percent. New investments in major equipment will account for over 32 per cent of overall defence spending by 2024-25.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan answers a question during Question Period in the House of Commons in Ottawa on Thursday, June 9, 2016. (Adrian Wyld/CP)

[duforsure]

15. Canada is lucky to have

JT , he's showing his greatness now. Many here in the states are so sorry trump is where he is, and are just as troubled by him as many throughout the world are now. Great to see a real leader that can act rationally, and honestly for the people he represents. Ours s ure can't.He represents putin over the American people.

[vlyons]

16. Increased spending by NATO countries

Isn't it really all about spending money by buying more US armaments from the US war machine?

[MGKrebs]

17. Bingo.

Other countries spending less on defense doesn't mean we have to spend more. We spend what we choose to spend like everyone else.
We just want to sell more weapons.

[luvtheGWN]

19. Yes, and a lot of those armaments

are made using Canadian steel and aluminum. The 25% tariff doesn't help the U.S., does it?

Canadian forces have been sent everywhere in the world to either help preserve peace, or to help bring peace. My great-nephew is being deployed to Estonia in the fall. Many of his colleagues are currently in Mali. Interestingly enough, he and his battalion have had many training operations with their US counterparts. Without any sense of bragging, he tells us the Canadian troops are head and shoulders above the US, and finds this most surprising......

Putin's aim is three-fold: to resurrect the old Soviet Union, to break up the EU, and to destroy NATO. Trump is doing his utmost to help him. There really is no question anymore about that.

[Mike Rows His Boat]

24. Bingo. Canada should make cuts equal to US tariffs on Ca products. eom

[Bayard]

21. This

Will have to sell more to pay more for steel now.

[Achilleaze]

26. Double Bingo !

[MGKrebs]

39. Update:

"Later during his news conference, Trump indicated he hopes NATO members will use their increased military expenditures to buy American equipment, which he described as “so much better than anybody else’s.”"

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-begins-nato-news-conference-with-an-egregious-lie-3a035c6d09fa/

Just in case there was any doubt.

[ck4829]

25. K&R

[world wide wally]

31. Guess what, Donnie...

Trudeau ain't no Republican Congressman

[George II]

32. Trudeau to trump:

[Gothmog]

36. Yeah for Canada

[usaf-vet]

37. Don't be fooled by the fool in the White House on NATO spending.

Let's say all of the NATO allies say OK. The U.S. has contributed more than we have so for the next ten years we the allies will pick-up the U.S. share. For argument sake say it's 2.5 Trillion that we will save by not having to pay our "dues".

Who among us believes that our total military budget will drop by the 2.5 Trillion. If you do I have a bridge...... Ok you get the point.

This like everything else Trump does is a scam to fatten his pockets and the pockets of his donors. Additionally he is fulfilling one of Putin's dreams a divided weaken NATO.

Do not forget troops from NATO countries have fought and died along side U.S. troops.

This is another divide and conqueror mission. The republicans are always looking for ways to drive wedges between us in order to gain power. Look at Wisconsin a perfect example of this strategy. Since Walker has taken power unions have been destroyed. Laws have been broken and ignored. The judiciary has been stack (bought via Citizen United). The environment has been sold off to the highest bidder.

Trump is playing the same game on a national level.

DON'T be fooled by the con man in the White House and his gang of greedy fools. Think Pruitt!