Trump Warns Germany "Owes Vast Sums To US... Must Be Paid For Defense"

Tyler Durden's picture

Amid #NoHandshakeGate and the "we have something in common" moment, yesterday's meeting between President Trump and German Chancellor Merkel was at best cordial, judging by the G-20 discussions, and this latest tweet from Trump...

Of course this is not the first time he has pointed this out... NATO, he said, “has problems.”

“[NATO] is obsolete, first because it was designed many, many years ago,” Bild quoted Trump as saying about the trans-Atlantic military alliance. “Secondly, countries aren’t paying what they should” and NATO “didn’t deal with terrorism.”

 

While those comments expanded on doubts Trump raised about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization during his campaign, he reserved some of his most dismissive remarks for the EU and Merkel, whose open-border refugee policy he called a “catastrophic mistake.”

FACT CHECK: Trump is 100% Correct - Germany has been under-funding its defense budget for years... NATO's 28-member countries committed in 2014 to spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense within a decade. But only the U.S. and four other members of the post-World War II military coalition are meeting the standard, Pence said.

Failure to meet the commitment, he said, "erodes the very foundation of our alliance."

"Let me be clear on this point: The president of the United States expects our allies to keep their word, to fulfill this commitment and, for most, that means the time has come to do more," Pence said.

More awkward looks to come...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
shovelhead's picture

This time the Germans won't have to leave home to get their war.

The muzloids are gonna deliver like Dominos Pizza.

Disgruntled Goat's picture

Quite correct. Islam is destroying all of Western Europe. Violence and robbery, women are attacked and raped. Germany, where are your men?

Setarcos's picture

For your FACTUAL information, the USA has been almost continuously at war since 1776.  The longest period without war was five years during the Great Depression.

Typical ignorant Yank, a disgrace to those who are informed.

Harry Lightning's picture

While it is true that the United States has been involved in more military operations than it probably should have been in, your assertion that the country "has been almost continuously at war since 1776" truly is uninformed. As is detailed in the link below at the end of my discourse, even if you count every instance of the US military being involved in some type of operation, and not just the actual "wars" the country has fought, you still find that your claim about five years being the longest period without war is proven false time and again.

Indeed, if the US can be faulted for its military operations, that fault legitimately is focused on a wrongful choices of picking its battles, and then an unwillingness to end the conflicts decisively. These faults began when the country decided to project its powers and to protect people outside the United States. Indeed, legitimate questions can be raised as to whether it was the responsibility of the US to spend its money and blood defending the freedom and safety of Europeans in two world wars, along with people who were subjugated under communist totalitarianism in Korea and Viet Nam. In all of America's military activities since WWII, even if the operations are found in hindsight to have been wise moves, certainly the unwillingness of the US civilian leadership to decimate its enemies (which its military could easily have done) led to greater losses of American money and life than the underlying principles for battle warranted.

It will be for the historians of the ages to decide whether Truman should have allowed MacArthur to solve the problems of communist aggression in Korea and Beijing, whether Hanoi should now be a manmade lake, and whether Kandahar should be glowing in the early stages of a thermonuclear fallout. 

Additionally, did the US do the world a favor or not by increasingly trying to promote civilized tactics of warfare ? Would there be less war if the combatants knew that losing meant annihilation for its populations ? Did the Geneva Accords after WWII actually promote more warfare because the losses to be sustained were limited ? Would the prospect of absolute terror like what the US did with its firebombing of Tokyo and its use of nuclear weaponry serve to make people whose government is on a collision course with the US rise up and stop its leaders from making such a critical error ? Would people in nations where terrorists flourish root the terrorists out of their communities if they knew they would be held responsible in the most harsh of ways should those local-grown terrorists take actions that resulted in retalliation from US forces ? Perhaps the use of such tactics as surgical bombing and nation building only encourage leaders of countries at odds with America to take on the challenge, knowing that the gain in esteem among their people will be greater than the price they will pay from the American military attacks. Would you be more or less willing to fight the US military if you knew that losing meant complete incineration of your people and country rather than just the destruction of military assets and government buildings ?

So before you start throwing around claims of ignorance at others, perhaps you should spend more time analyzing what the results would have been for the world communities had the US chosen not to fight for those who were unable to fight for themselves, and whether the tactics employed by the Americans indeed were too kind. What if America had fought less but when it did engage, used all of its weaponry to create a final solution to the dispute ? What if America was more willing to exterminate civilian populations of its enemies instead of sacrificing the lives of its own sons ? Should America have left those denied freedom under totalitarianism to fight for themselves, or was it right for the US military to seek democracy and its resultant freedoms for these people ? Would Europe have been better off today if ruled from Berlin and forced to speak German ? Should Japan's empire been left unchallenged? How can a decisive military victory designed to bring freedom to the masses be achieved without injuring those very people ? Isn't this the great challenge of most places in which the US has employed its military ? 

If you want to deal in factual information, as you sugest in your remarks, then these are the questions that you need to consider and answer.  Becaue only after you consider whether the world needed a policeman for the last 100+ years can you decide whether the US was correct to fill the void and step up into that role in the absence of anyone else other than the British willing to do so.

Its easy to fault the US for the interventions they have made with their military. The more difficult question is what would the world have looked like if they had not. Without question, hundreds of millions of people live in freedom today because the American military won them that freedom by defeating the tyrants who sought to deprive them of it. The real question that you should be considering is whether those people were worth saving, and if so, what beter tactics could have been employed to achive the desired result. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_lengths_of_American_participat...

Savyindallas's picture

Can't disagree more with your post. I think the warfare by total annihilation you prescribe has already been tried and failed. How many hundreds of thousands of innocent women and chidren were incinerated in firebombings of Dresden, hamburg, Wirzberg, Tokyo, etc? Not to mention in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 

Yes we lost 35000 soldiers in the Korean conflict. North Korean civilian caualties alone exceeded 1.5 million and over a million more soldier caualties. 

Yes we lost 58000 soldiers in Vietnam  -our enemy suffered over a million civilian casulaties by best estimates. And well over a million soldier casualties. Being burned alive by napalm is a really pleasant way to go. 

 

And I won't even get into the recent Iaq, Syrian/Libyan conflicts as well as several others. Who cares if Hillary sold 20% of US Uranium interests to the Russians. All we have to do is go to Iraq and recover the massive amounts of depleted uranium we left there from a million or so bombs we dropped on that country. Iraq will remain a toxic dump for the next 500,000 years or so. 

 

 

TrustbutVerify's picture

No more free rides for NATO members? NATO welfare no more?

Grumbleduke's picture

just go away, yankee assholes. Take Gladio with you. Take Soros with you. Take Kissenger with you. Keep Bush in your assholes.

Go the fuck away, never to return. 

We will surely shed a tear for you.

Not.

Robert of Ottawa's picture

Soros is your boy, matey. How do you like his pro-muslim invasion policies?

Savyindallas's picture

Apparently a lot of European women enjoy getting ravaged by sex starved Muslim African immigrants. Makes you wonder why European men are unable to satisfy their women. Too many gay men in Europe? The growing transgender crowd seems to still have a healthy interest in little girls and women -they like hanging out in little girl's restrooms while their governments aggressively protect their right to do so.  

Savyindallas's picture

Okay  -we'll leave-but we're not taking Soros-he's your problem. 

We'll deal with Kissinger. He should be dead by now but I suspect he keeps getting transplants of his vital organs from young fresh victims of Pizzagate.

As far as the Bush's  -I guess we'll have to keep them-I want them here to be held accountable when the 911 scam finally gets exposed. However, I demand that they leave my State of Texas. Send those yankee Skull 'N Bones fake Texans back to yankeeland where they belong. 

slyder wood's picture

Germany can get its energy needs from Russia and be a major player in Eurasia market. Trumps talk is bullshit. We have at least 18 military bases in Germany not to protect Germany but to threaten RU and protect US hegemony. The refugee problem is one of an over-breeding and ignorant Muslim population that's partially a result of at least 27 years of wreaking havoc on the ME in addition to long term drought. Zionists and neocons are the real problem.

1.21 jigawatts's picture

Since Greece is paid up, can we send in military to protect them from Muzzies, Kikes and cucks? 

red1chief's picture

The Europeans, with the exception of the Polish, don't like the USA and know the are being occupied not defended. If they have to pay more it will increase pressure for them to try to break away.

Olympus Mons is not a Volcano's picture

Break away to whom? Russia? China? both.

The Group behind Trump are very good.

Spitball's picture

Away from the U.S.   

Listen to the words of this President. He's drving a wedge into the heart of the EU.

Having those pussies pay for their own shit is a path to getting rid of the European leech.

We pay for their security on the front side, then they steal our money on the backside through lopsided trade.

Fuck that fat cow Merkel. Let her pay for her own protection. Who gives a fuck which direction she's moving.

Good riddance.

williambanzai7's picture

Germany is right down there with Albania LOL!

Beans's picture

Hahaha first the Kikes put them under the yoke and now the Yanks plan on doing the same too. Is there no end to the Germans' suffering? So much for being an "ally" hehehe :D

 

BritBob's picture

True.

 

Spending on NATO – Percentage of GDP 2016 - United States, 3.61%. Greece, 2.38%. Britain, 2.21%. Estonia, 2.16%. Poland, 2%. France, 1.78%. Turkey, 1.56%. Norway, 1.54%. Lithuania, 1.49%. Romania, 1.48%. Latvia, 1.45%. Portugal, 1.38%. Bulgaria, 1.35%. Croatia, 1.23%. Albania, 1.21%. Germany, 1.19%. Denmark, 1.17%. Netherlands, 1.17%. (NATO Stats published by CNN 18 July 2016)

 

And some NATO members are being obstructive - Spanish Guardia Civil vessel Rio Cedena twice tried to disrupt the visit by ballistic missile sub USS Florida as it was approaching the British Overseas Territory on the southern tip of Spain.


According to the 
Sun, the incident has caused outrage among senior officials in Gibraltar with one 'top source' saying: 'This is not only a very dangerous game for the Spanish to play but it is unbecoming of a NATO ally to treat the US Navy with such contempt.'

(Daily Mail 6 May 2016)

 

Looks like Spain will try and play the Gibraltar card  (A worthless sovereignty claim): Gibraltar - Some Relevant International Law: https://www.academia.edu/10575180/Gibraltar_-_Some_Relevant_Internationa...

Gibraltar is an important NATO base.

Dilluminati's picture

Educated post.

I agree.

We need to allow our military to do their jobs and stop making them peacekeepers while liberal kumbaya civilians stab these servicemen in the back, rob their benefits, and cheat them in healthcare.

Lets take care of those who take care of us and tell the moochers to go f0ck themselves, just common sense really

sinbad2's picture

Gibraltar is Spain.

Once upon a time Britain was powerful, and could annexe parts of other countries at will. 

Those days are over, the UK is a has been, and sucking up to the Yanks won't help much, because they too, are passed their prime.

funkyfreddy's picture

Is the amount Germany owes somewhere in the region of the amount America owes Germany in gold but no longer actually has to give back?

Olympus Mons is not a Volcano's picture

Wow trumps done it again! the team behind him are very good.

Manufacturing a change in Public Perception to allow Germany to move closer to Russia. whether actually or just within the 'Public Perception'* it's a very good start.

He's just helped Merkel and Germany.

*The social phenomenon known as public perception can be seen as the difference between an absolute truth based on facts and a virtual truth shaped by popular opinion, media coverage and/or reputation.

shutterbug's picture

Moron much? Because at this day Trump = Hillary Clinton with a dick.

They both are actively seeking more conflicts for their DoDs....

shutterbug's picture

Thats gross... USA creating all the conflicts around the world.

And then they tell other countries to spend more on defense, because their defense industry demands it...

 

TRUMP IS JUST ANOTHER FAILED MORON. Just like Obama is... they are the opposite side of the same coin. MOARRR WARRRSSS.

Sizzurp's picture

Other than make all the defense contractors a ton of money, what is the point of NATO again? Why do we have to fight for Europe? They seem like big boys and girls with a combined economy that is roughly the same as ours. Let them handle it while we protect our own borders. Team America world police is too expensive.

nah's picture

NATO is a alliance with stated goals for its members.

.

I would prefer a world without boogeymen threatening it's existence.

.

The EU as a project and government has a negotiating position on world trade, good government, citizen rights, bank regulation, tariffs, membership legislation, borders, NATO, Russia, and China.  Big shoes to fill and alot of eyes on the prize I am sure for the citizens granted a larger role in global trade and security by their own leadership and regional voting blocs.

.

US President Donald Trump appears to have a legal responsibility as well.

Vigilante's picture

Greece is second in spending...wtf

Despite being bankrupt we have to spend loads of money to protect ourselves from Turkey (who also happen to be in NATO)

Fuck NATO and fuck Turkey

sinbad2's picture

So why would Greece spend so much?

Then ask who would want Greece to pay so much?

Then you know who controls Greece.

Barrock's picture

NATO was created to counter the USSR threat.  The USSR no longer exists.  Therefore, NATO should disband.

 

sinbad2's picture

There never was a USSR threat, NATO is designed to give the US a bigger army, and make money for the MIC.

yngso's picture

Europe is sick and tired of getting pushed around. It has half a billion people vs a third in the US and doesn't need NATO.

Savyindallas's picture

Solution  -Europe need not pay 2% for defense. Stay at 1%. The US just needs to lower their defense spending from 5-7% to 1% and use the savings to rebuild inrastructure. That will put us in alignment with Russian spending. We have no enemies on our borders (our enemies are from within) Russia has enemies with nukes all along their borders. (us and Nato) If Russia decides to take advantage of our reduced spending, we can increase ours to keep up with them. 

whoisjg's picture

We should have a simple statement, that to be under the US Nato protection, companies must pay in CASH the difference between 2% and their military funding, directly to the USA

Vin's picture

Paid in gold.  Can't print that.

Beans's picture

Here's a simple statement:

Protecting people from threats YOU have created, is an extortion racket!

Raul44's picture

Iceland 0.00  :))) <3

Vin's picture

Keep their gold and tell them to fk off.

sinbad2's picture

Well the US has kept their gold, and the gold of everybody else.

Ain't nobody gonna get any money out of that bank(NY Fed)

BitchesBetterRecognize's picture

when the monies owed to the USA by Germany question arrises, I cannot stop thinking about the "German gold repatriation" gasp...... 

bottom line: as proved many times - a tweet from Trump is far away form a real legislation or a done deal - it is only his own opinion....  

sinbad2's picture

Look up operation Paperclip, and read about the trillions in intellectual property siezed, and the kidnapped German scientists that were put into forced labour  in the US.

oncemore's picture

iince 70 years US sits in Germany.

US has to pay for the occupation.

farmerbraun's picture

So Germay forfeits its remaining gold in order to enjoy the benefits of being an occupied country  ; what's not to like?

It's an opening gambit. 

Let the dealing commence.

PoasterToaster's picture
PoasterToaster (not verified) Mar 18, 2017 5:19 PM

Iceland at zero?  Iceland is actually in the north Atlantic too.

Maybe they should at least buy one boat and call it a navy.  Then hold viking parties on it, sailing around the island boozing it up and singing loudly about the glories of not being stuck in the middle of the European hellhole.

logicalman's picture

104th year of Federal Reserve administration.

roadhazard's picture

Germany sez, "Ve gott our Gold back just in time."