All errors should be reported to

Monday, January 28, 2019

Trump gets NATO allies to pony up $100 billion

The American press howled when President Donald John Trump (shuffles cards) demanded NATO allies keep their word and devote 2% of their GDP to the defense of their nations.

Time magazine screamed on February 20, 2017, "Donald Trump's Demands on NATO Defense Spending Are Driving a Wedge Into Europe."

MSNBC screamed on April 21, 2017, "Trump is starting to run out of U.S. allies to alienate."

And Politico published on May 31, 2017, "Primer for President Trump: How NATO funding really works."

The primer played down the 2 percent requirement, which of course was the primary goal.

Politico said why "in Germany's case, meeting the 2 percent GDP target would require nearly doubling its annual military spending to roughly $70 billion from $40 billion."

That is the American press for you. It is more worried about poor Germany than it is about the United States of America.

But President Trump succeeded because he was right and the press was wrong.


Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, praised our president for getting our allies to keep their word. Old Jens is from Norway.

He told Fox News, "President Trump has been very clear.

"He is committed to NATO. He stated that clearly just a few days ago and also at the NATO summit in July. But at the same time, he has clearly stated that NATO allies need to invest more. And therefore at the summit in July last year, we agreed to do more to step up -- and now we see the results."

Allies have increased their spending on their own defense by $100 billion this year.

That is equal to one-seventh of what America spends, so that is a very significant increase, and very appreciated.

Stoltenberg said, "What he's doing is to help us adapt the alliance, which we need because we live in a more unpredictable world with a more assertive Russia using violence and force against a neighbor, Ukraine. And therefore NATO has to adapt."

In the old days, the USA would increase its military spending to thwart the Soviet Union.

The allies can handle Russia, which remains a shell of the old USSR.


  1. Perhaps the allies can handle Russia.... But how does that equation change if / when Germany surrenders its coal industry in favor of natural gas purchased from... wait for it... Russia?
    The damage that Merkel has done to Germany, et al., will take years to be fully revealed, I believe. We observe and speculate, but the full reality of the consequences are yet to unfold.

    1. nope Germany does not want to pay for the Russia gas line instead they will buy our LNG and skip the pip line altogether. Plus our gas is cheaper than Russian gas.

  2. That's why Trump leaned on Germany to buy American LNG, with the result that Germany opened up to American gas:

    1. Less dependence on Russia would be good. Recall how Russia "weaponized" (to use a currently popular buzzword) energy supply to Europe via Ukraine in 2009.
      50%-75% of German nat gas from Russia in 2018:,_first_semester_2018_(share_(%25)_of_trade_in_value).png

  3. The United States of America - Fighting Europe's wars and funding their recoveries for over one hundred years.

    There is much to be said for the NATO alliance, but the U.S. should not be expected to pay the biggest share. We already cover them with our nuclear umbrella. Our southern border is under attack by Mexico and Central America, but I haven't heard of any NATO offers to help.

    - Elric

  4. NATO is just like the French. They'll be there when they need us.- GOC

    1. Excellent comment. Would you mind if I use it in the future?

  5. Our relationship with Germany, Japan, Italy, Britain, and other countries since World War II:

    1. We are responsible for protecting them from aggression.

    2. They face no such responsibility toward us. On paper, maybe. In practice? Nobody believes it. Nobody has ever believed it.

    In other words: the U.S. is liable for all the costs of colonialism, but without any of the benefits, including authority, that comes with it. Our "colonies" are free to compete with us, but not required to do anything that would provide us with tangible benefit (or at least not in peacetime).

    Throw in the fact that they don't have to be serious about their foreign policy because they're not serious about their defense, and you have ostensible allies who act like enemies when it suits them.

  6. No brainer: There’s our Wall funding! Hell, if Mexico won’t pay, I’ll damn sure take them Deutschmarks, man. Consider it payback for all the billions we spent tearing down their Bad Wall.

    1. Not to mention cleaning up after Herr Schickelgruber's little romp..

    2. Yes and only to turn around and install Senora Merkel at the helm.
      Germany's / Europe's demise is simply Darwinism in slow motion.

  7. Many, or most, in Europe know that they have been free riding on America.
    Unfortunately, instead of gratitude, it seems to more often breed an uncomfortable resentment.
    Not unlike welfare entitled folk being resentful of the richer workers -- and I think from the same source.
    They know, er feel (without quite "knowing"?) it's not fair, and yet the feel it's the US gov't fault.

    So it probably is -- the US should stop being the free world's nanny, and also, in the US, stop being the free people's nanny. Fair relations, with mutual respect, should be the goal. With Trump we're moving there.

  8. This is the equivalent to 1/4% increase in gdp to the US before any sort of multiplier effect, if we spend that 100 bln on ourselves.
    Every day, DREX keeps bringing home the bacon. The culative effect of all these "deals" WILL be felt. We're very never had a President bring home more than we are seeing with this guy.