**** Elections thread *****

[OngBonga]

Well I'm finding it difficult to find the exact T&C, so I guess it depends on who you're listening to. I'm sure I read an article recently that basically argued that anyone spending more than they did the previous year was at least succeeding in getting closer to 2%, which was the implied expectation of "with the aim" or whatever the exact language is. The article certainly left me thinking that the language was loose enough that there was no actual obligation to spend 2% of GDP. I'd go further... if there is such an obligation, then why is it only a problem now Trump is in office? Why didn't NATO send debt collectors to Latvia when they first failed to pay their 2%?

[wufwugy]

Well I'm finding it difficult to find the exact T&C, so I guess it depends on who you're listening to. I'm sure I read an article recently that basically argued that anyone spending more than they did the previous year was at least succeeding in getting closer to 2%, which was the implied expectation of "with the aim" or whatever the exact language is. The article certainly left me thinking that the language was loose enough that there was no actual obligation to spend 2% of GDP. I'd go further... if there is such an obligation, then why is it only a problem now Trump is in office? Why didn't NATO send debt collectors to Latvia when they first failed to pay their 2%?

Because the US globalists want it that way. European dependency on the US is big thing in many different fields, not just military.

Trump is a change of foreign policy doctrine.

[BananaStand]

if there is such an obligation, then why is it only a problem now Trump is in office?

I'm surprised you don't see it. NATO's sworn enemy is Russia. So undermining NATO helps Trump's bro-mance with Putin. Being Putin's friend is the only reason Trump ran for president in the first place, duh.