#NATO GDP commitment

[themorningnewsinformer]

NATO Summit 2025: Rutte Pushes 5% Defense Spending Amid Global Tensions

Introduction The NATO summit 2025t in The Hague has opened with a powerful declaration from newly appointed Secretary General Mark Rutte, who is urging all 32 member states to commit to spending 5% of their GDP on defense. Amid rising global instability, Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, and a more unpredictable US presence under President Donald Trump, the alliance faces unprecedented pressure to…

[politicalprof]

NATO matters

I don't know who needs to hear this, but NATO members don't pay the US to protect them. Instead, they agree to defend each other in case of an attack against any member, and back that pledge with a commitment to spend a certain percentage of their GDP on defense matters. It is the case that some member states have not always fully lived up to that commitment -- a commitment that has largely now been met given Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But NATO members aren't refusing to make payments to the US. That's not how NATO works.

[centrally-unplanned]

Let's do a "Tepid Critique" of Tanner Greer's latest piece around America's new turn away from the European security alliance. It is a quick one, generally outlining how generational churn has resulted in a cultural shift around the value of NATO+ amoung a new wave of people who weren't around for the Cold War. And he outlines this as a response to the material realities of the US/Euro funding split, citing a 2011 speech by Sec Def Robert Gates:

Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, future U.S. political leaders—those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me—may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.

I do not think this is a false statement, but I think we are confusing the mechanism here. There is not in the US much of a "new generation" of people who now hate NATO or Europe. All of that polls very well!

The actual Ukraine war tested it, sure, (live wars do that) but it didn't shift it much at all - except amoung a minority faction. And note, Ukraine...isn't in NATO? Like that isn't a NATO thing! The US also tired of supporting South Vietnam, this just happens in all wars - we are cheapskates, news at eleven. The idea that Greer & Gates outlines of a next generation "atrophying" away this alliance is not really shown in the data.

And that makes sense because, while Europe underfunding their military is bad for Europe, it really isn't a huge deal for the US. The only real NATO war fought since the end of the Cold War was against an attack on the US! I guess you can count the Serbian bombings, but that is incredibly small bore. And to widen from NATO, dozens of European allies helped the US in Afghanistan and Iraq and the War on Terror, and meanwhile almost none of those countries have had any real conflicts that we have had to commit to. Whatever they spend on military is general "bonus" for the US. There are wider problems here, sure, that isn't my point - my point is that the current US population has not, materially, felt at all the "burden" of supporting Europe. There is not yet such a thing.

Now ofc there is a large minority faction that is pretty passionate about all this isolationism stuff! Which is a valid mechanism for change even if the "silent majority" is unmoved. But I think this group is a bit misunderstood because they have looong roots in the US. Many who have written about this will mention the isolationist parties of Charles Lindbergh and the America First movement; this did not vanish during the Cold War by any means! It just didn't win elections. My perennial go-to Trump precursor Ross Perot was a globalist-skeptic, and in 1992 - one year after the USSR fell! - he won ~20% of the vote as an independent. Not saying that was his Big Issue, it wasn't...but it wasn't Trump's either. The turn to isolation in the current administration wasn't fought at the ballot box, it was fought in the shadows of the back rooms and the trenches of Twitter. Those are far more contingent battles and "generational churn" is too simplistic to use for them.

And let's look at some of those fighters! Remember the whole North Carolina hurricane thing last year? That was a big one for the anti-Ukraine movement, lots of shit like this:

Now I want you to remember Greer's point, that European "free-riding" created the conditions for their intellectual discarding. Take that, and imagine a world where Europe spends 3% of its GDP on defense. A world where Europe, instead of giving 40% of all military aid to Ukraine like it currently does, gives 70%

In that world does a single word of this tweet change?

Obviously it doesn't! It is actually insane to think it would, no one does. These tweets are from fucking liars, they don't care about the actual quantity of aid flows to Ukraine. If Trump was president when the aid was given they would never said a word! It is partisan bullshit from top to bottom. The actual, material realities of the US-European security relationship are a bit player in this ideological reshift. It is just domestic politics picking out partisan victims.

The simple reality of America's currently realignment on this issue is that is not a grand shift in public opinion so much as a collapse in the elite structure of the Republican Party. They failed to gatekeep candidates due to a bad primary system, failed to anticipate the growing importance of immigration, and were too stubborn to just lie to voters and pivot to the center on things like middle class welfare. And that faction, for mercurial reasons, also hates Europe. This is not some inevitable trendline by any means.

Now, I said this was a tepid critique, and I meant it. I think this framing is wrong, it didn't happen the way Gates implied. An extant minority wing hijacked by an outsider strongman executed an entryist takeover of an existing party structure and started winning just enough online culture war battles to grow into dominance. But it is the case that, while that happened, the Republican Party is still pro-life despite Trump not caring about that in the slightest. Because when he took over the party, the pro-life faction was strong, and he could not simply discard them, and so he accommodated them (and other reasons ofc, just gotta focus).

Foreign policy, unlike domestic policy, never has a large domestic voting base, so it was easy to discard. But also, while traditional Republican support amoung party elites for the globalist strategy was consensus, the faith in it had been dinged by European weakness. Few really wanted to die on this hill the way that during the Cold War they would have, and Gates is correctly outlining something that happened within this elite subfaction (as opposed to the "establishment" as a whole, where it did not happen). So when push came to shove on this topic they balked, over and over - while at the same time hard-pushing tax cuts and welfare reductions, the things they have strong faith in.

I do think a world where Europe was seen by these elites as "doing their part", pushback would have been stronger. Enough to make a difference? Eh, who knows. But still worth pointing out and exploring.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Two years after being ordered on an urgent basis, a new defence policy for Canada was unveiled Monday that promises — among other things — to bolster the military's surveillance and combat capabilities in the Arctic.

The strategy commits to delivering new equipment, including airborne early warning aircraft (AWACs), long-range surface-to-surface missiles for the army and utility helicopters that may or may not be manned.

The plan also lists new equipment the Department of National Defence is considering acquiring, such as air defence systems to protect critical infrastructure and new submarines.

The new policy, entitled Our North, Strong and Free, includes an additional $8.1 billion in new defence spending over the next five years and commits to an additional $73 billion in defence spending over the next two decades.

The additional investments will not bring Canada all the way to meeting NATO's military spending target for member nations — two per cent of national gross domestic product. The Liberal government estimates that the new policy will see military spending rise to 1.76 per cent of GDP by 2029-30. [...]

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland, @vague-humanoid

Note from the poster @el-shab-hussein: So NATO's mad at Canada for not doing enough imperialism and military pollution? Remind me what the Paris accords were for again?

[beardedmrbean]

In a move to strengthen its national defense, Lithuania has announced plans to increase its defense spending to between 5 percent and 6 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), starting in 2026.

Currently, Lithuania spends just over 3 percent of its GDP on defense, a figure that places it well below the new target.

Why It Matters

The decision, confirmed by Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda on Friday, reflects growing concerns about Russian military aggression in the region, particularly as tensions with Moscow remain high amid the war in Ukraine. The Baltic country shares a border with Russia's Kaliningrad Oblast.

With the pledge to reach 5 percent, Lithuania will become the first NATO member to meet a defense spending goal recently suggested by President-elect Donald Trump.

Why Is Lithuania Increasing Its Defense Budget?

The new policy will make Lithuania the highest spender on defense in NATO in percentage terms, surpassing Poland, which currently leads with over 4 percent of GDP allocated to defense.

Trump has called on NATO countries to significantly increase their defense budgets, warning that member states should meet a minimum threshold of 5 percent of GDP, up from the existing 2 percent target.

Trump has long been critical of NATO members who fail to meet defense spending targets. While Lithuania's new commitment aligns with the incoming president's calls for greater defense investments, the country's decision underscores a regional shift toward bolstering military strength in the face of Russian aggression.

Newsweek contacted the Lithuanian government by email on Friday for further comment.

What To Know

The move, described by Nausėda as a "historic decision," was endorsed by the State Defense Council, the country's top security body.

In addition to defending its borders, Lithuania aims to modernize its military capabilities with the additional funding.

Defense Minister Dovilė Šakalienė confirmed that the extra resources will be used to accelerate the purchase of advanced weaponry, including Leopard tanks, air defense systems, and other essential equipment.

How Will Lithuania Spend Its Increased Defense Budget?

The investment will enable Lithuania to make advance payments and expedite deliveries of critical military assets, which will significantly enhance its readiness and deterrence capabilities.

The announcement comes amid a broader debate over NATO's future and the role of the U.S. in ensuring the alliance's security.

What People Are Saying

President Gitanas Nausėda said during a press briefing in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius: "The possibility of Russian military aggression is still real, but not imminent. We need to increase our efforts to strengthen defense and deterrence significantly, devoting more resources to this end."

What Happens Now

With Lithuania leading the way, other NATO members may follow suit, increasing their defense budgets as they respond to the growing uncertainty of European security in an era of resurgent Russian power.

[dipstar1489]

Hey, America, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!

Ok, I just heard about the news of the US bombing Iran, and oh my god, I wish the bullet gave Trump a piercing through the skull than the ear, cause then we wouldn’t be in this fucking mess in the first place! Prepare for a long rant.

First, and probably one of the biggest warning signs that we should have known we were fucked is when Trump said he didn’t trust Tulsi Gabbard, who is our current director of national intelligence. One thing to note, Gabbard is under-qualified to be put in the position that Trump himself put her in. Considering this, why the fuck did he PERSONALLY PICKED an under-qualified person HE DOESN’T TRUST in the first place???

Secondly, he’s been doing the game of risk with our economics by trying to isolate us and limit our chances, which is making the situation ten times worse for us. Since it’s unlikely Trumpers (and whatever Republican is willing to listen to him) will listen to me, I’m going to talk about this not with humanity, but with their main priority: economics.

By adding stupidly big tariffs to America, citizens here are less inclined to spend their money on international products that can be circulating the money to its citizens, American sellers have to raise prices for products because their international inventory now costs more than usual, and whatever products America should be making over seas is now fucked because the countries we pissed off now have tariffs against us, making us be limited in resources.

Trump has also cut support programs such the USAID and UNRWA, and now he’s trying to avoid paying NATO 5% of the GDP THAT HE SUGGESTED RAISING THE AMOUNT TO IN THE FIRST PLACE! By not helping out the people in these countries, Trump has made it to where we cannot ask other countries for help because we refused to do our part in supporting them.

Obviously, Trump has gotten rid of DEI and has put a ban on trans people being in the military. By getting rid of DEI, our innovation has decreased significantly because the people in power now have a limited view point that lacks the awareness people of different backgrounds would of had. Also, the ban on trans people being in the military not only got rid of qualified people, but their roles are now either empty due to fear of being kicked out because of their identity, or replaced by someone less competent, all of which puts us in even more danger.

Finally, their’s Trump’s claims that he bombed all of Iran’s nuclear weapons, and let me just say this in true crime terms, Iran always had the opportunity, they now have the motive, and if Trump is wrong, Iran has the fucking weapon to kill us. America is passive in our military tactics where unless we are dragged into in like Pearl Harbor and the sinking of American boats, we support a side through resources and finances. Trump is trying to make America provocative and we aren’t prepared for this military strategy.

Trump has effectively created a distrust between America and everyone else, making it less likely that another country is willing to help America when Iran more than likely strikes us.

Edit: Forgot to mention something for economics, Trump has committed tax fraud that lasted for 15 years and was discovered back in 2022. Whoever thought it was a good idea to put the annoying orange in charge of our finances is the biggest idiot I have ever seen and it proves to me that Trump never understood economics, which is terrible since money is the reason why America is isolated.

[mariacallous]

Foreign ministers of the five biggest powers in Europe together with the incoming top EU diplomat and host Poland held talks in Warsaw on Tuesday to reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine in its defence against Russian aggression.

“We were in agreement that imposing on Ukraine peace recipes contrary to its interests or unacceptable socially would have a negative impact on the stability of the country,” Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said after the meeting of Weimar Triangle foreign ministers (Germany, France and Poland) plus Italy, Spain and the UK.

“Any scenarios for finishing the war and putting an end to Russian aggression must be worked out in close cooperation with the Ukrainian government,” Sikorski added.

The meeting was called to allay fears that Ukraine would be sidelined once the newly elected US president Donald Trump takes office in January. Trump has repeatedly talked about bringing peace “in 24 hours” by imposing a solution that would likely be heavily weighted towards Russia.

Jitters were also caused by the decision of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to discuss the war with Russian President Vladimir Putin on a one-on-one call last week, the first since the full-scale invasion began. That call has been criticised by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, among others.

Sikorski was joined in Warsaw by the foreign ministers of Germany (Annalena Baerbock), France (Jean-Noel Barrot), Italy (Antonio Tajani) as well as Kaja Kallas, the future EU high representative for foreign affairs. The foreign ministers of Spain and the UK took part in the talks remotely.

Explaining the reasons for organising the meeting, Sikorski said it was prompted by the weekend’s major attack on Ukraine, the largest since last year, as well as by the US presidential election.

The meeting in Warsaw also served as an attempt by Poland to preserve its key role in European policymaking on Ukraine after apparently being snubbed last month by Berlin when it held talks on Ukraine with the US, UK and France but not Poland. It was also an opportunity for Sikorski to score a few domestic points ahead of his party’s primary election later this week to choose its presidential candidate for next year.

German Foreign Minister Baerbock spoke about the importance of not “having any breaks in securing the peace in Europe” in the context of uncertainties connected to the election of Trump as the next president of the US. EU countries, she said, “must strengthen the European pillar of NATO” and “invest significantly more than 2 per cent of GDP in defence”.

She also warned against “self-fulfilling prophecies”, implying that it was too early to tell what a future US administration would do in relation to the war and US financial involvement in European defence.

All the foreign ministers were careful to highlight the importance of cooperation with the US for ensuring peace in Europe, regardless of who holds the reins of power in Washington. “It’s only by having strong transatlantic ties that we can counter the rising threats from Russia and other countries,” Sikorski said.

[darkmaga-returns]

NATO: The Case To Get Out Now

by David Stockman | Jan 31, 2025

The case for getting out of NATO now encompasses four fundamental propositions:

First, the Federal budget has become a self-fueling fiscal doomsday machine, even as the Fed has run out of capacity to monetize the skyrocketing public debt.

Second, the only viable starting point for fiscal salvation is slashing the nation’s elephantine Warfare State by at least $500 billion per year.

Third, the route to that end is a return to the “no entangling alliance” wisdom of the Founders, which means bringing the Empire Home, closing the 750 US bases abroad, scuttling much of the US Navy and Army and withdrawing from NATO and similar lesser treaties and commitments in Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere.

Fourthly, canceling NATO and its clones requires debunking its Origins Story and the false claim that it brought peace and security to post-war America when what it actually did was transform Washington into a planetary War Capital dominated by a panoptic complex of arms merchants, paladins of foreign intervention, neocon warmongers and a vast Warfare State nomenklatura.

As to the impending fiscal calamity, just recall this sequence. When Ronald Reagan campaigned against the soaring Federal deficits in 1980 the public debt was $930 billion and about 30% of GDP. But it had erupted to $20 trillion by Donald Trump’s first election, now stands at $36 trillion and 125% of GDP and will be hitting $62 trillion by the mid-2030s.

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

Brussels has set up a defensive office within the EU bureaucracy called “The Trump Task Force.”

"The leaders of the European Union are nervous about President Trump: (1) ending the war in Ukraine, and then (2) ending the Marshal Plan, thereby taxing their exports to the U.S as Trump demands tariff reciprocity; and lastly (3) forcing them to pay for their previous NATO commitments." - Sundance

BRUSSELS — Top European Union officials have met with the bloc’s ambassadors to talk through what it would mean if Donald Trump wins the U.S. election, 12 EU diplomats told POLITICO.

“They’re worried about trade but mostly [about] Ukraine,” one of the diplomats said, adding that Brussels foresees “abrupt changes on U.S. policy even before the inauguration.” The diplomat, like others quoted in this piece, was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

The conversations revolved around two areas of uncertainty should the Republican candidate reclaim the White House: Whether Washington would continue to support Ukraine and the prospect of higher U.S. tariffs for all incoming goods.

[…] The meetings come amid reports the bloc has set up a rapid reaction force to prepare for the fallout of the elections, colloquially known as the “Trump task force.” The EU wants to hit back hard on trade if Trump wins.

Trump has warned that he won’t defend “delinquent” NATO allies spending less than 2 percent of GDP on defense. And he has threatened to slap 10 to 20 percent tariffs on all imports to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. On Thursday, Trump called the EU a “mini China.”

“They don’t take our cars, they don’t take our farm products, don’t take anything. You have a $312 billion deficit with the EU. You know, the EU is a mini — but not so mini — is a mini China,” he said.

Three of the diplomats said that the discussions also touched upon the EU’s relations with China, with Trump set to antagonize Beijing even more. The meetings involve six Commission departments and cover topics such as trade, energy and digital policy — areas that could experience turbulence if Trump returns to the White House. (read more)

[thoughtlessarse]

Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, has rejected Nato’s proposal for member states to increase their defence spending to 5% of their GDP, saying the idea would “not only be unreasonable but also counterproductive”. Sánchez said that he was not seeking to complicate next week’s Nato summit in The Hague, but he wanted there to be a “more flexible formula” that would either make the target optional or allow Spain to opt out. The proposal – advanced by the Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, in response to Donald Trump’s demands for a 5% target – suggests member states agree to raise defence spending to 3.5% of their GDP and commit a further 1.5% to wider security spending. In a letter to Rutte that emerged on Thursday, Sánchez questioned the possible consequences of such a rise, saying it would be incompatible with Spain’s welfare state and its vision of the world.

continue reading

Such a rise is incompatible with every member's welfare state, US excepted. Good to see that somebody has the guts to say it, though.

[awesome-casuallyfamouscollector]

How Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia Are Gearing Up their Armed Forces

Today we explore the critical military developments in the Baltic region with our deep dive into Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia's strategic defense enhancements. Positioned between the Baltic Sea and the looming shadow of Russia, these three nations have significantly amplified their investment in military capabilities to counter potential threats from their powerful neighbor. Discover how Lithuania is bolstering its defense and armed forces by planning to increase its military spending to $2.8 billion by 2029, aiming to allocate 4.4% of its GDP to defense, matching Poland's commitment and surpassing the U.S. percentage(..)

P.S. A pretty good overview of the Baltic armed forces and military industry...In reality we have much, much more destructive firepower than most can imagine...We remember very well how the so-called "democratic" (France, Great Britain) and the part of the "Nazi West" (Germany) handed the Baltic region under the control of the evil empire of the communist Soviet Union in 1939...

This treason committed by Western politicians also hurt Finland and Poland, which is why in our region there are groans for a completely new military alliance, possibly independent of NATO...In case Trump destroys NATO's ability to function effectively

[kazhanko-art]

I’m glad Canada is continuing to contribute to Ukraine, and there’s supposed to be aid for the next 5 years at least, but I worry it won’t be enough. I wish the budget for Ukraine was bigger; though I’m far from an expert in economics, I think GDP wise we could afford it (granted, in terms of actual military equipment we weren’t on the best footing, and I guess we weren’t meeting our NATO commitments in funding)

But also, even if we donated more, there’s no way we can meet the aid that is stalled in the US. Even if we combined our aid with other countries that’d be a huge commitment. That aid could save so many lives, it COULD HAVE saved so many lives. So many soldiers, so many civilians, and it’s all being stalled because a bunch of Americans need to have an ego stroke about it

Of course, that’s not just an American issue, plenty of countries have had asshats, including here, trying to stall aid, shit talking Ukrainians, celebrating russian crimes. It’s just the amount on hold, the steaks at play, and Ukrainians being told by the US specifically not to bomb the russian refineries is making it especially frustrating right now, and I know that it’s a lot worse for those in Ukraine, or family in Ukraine. It doesn’t take a lot of time in online Ukrainian spaces to know how dire things are, and how scared everyone is.

I don’t know how much we can make up for it, but if you’re a ukrainian diaspora member or ukrainian supporter, maybe try to mind local information on organizations and events in your countries that can lobby for more aid and support. And besides that, ukrainian organizations to donate to. United24 is always a good default. But if there’s any others please share them.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Bill Bramhall

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

February 12, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

FEB 12, 2024

Today’s big story continues to be Trump’s statement that he “would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) if those countries are, in his words, “delinquent.” Both Democrats and Republicans have stood firm behind NATO since Dwight D. Eisenhower ran for president in 1952 to put down the isolationist wing of the Republican Party, and won.

National security specialist Tom Nichols of The Atlantic expressed starkly just what this means: “The leader of one of America’s two major political parties has just signaled to the Kremlin that if elected, he would not only refuse to defend Europe, but he would gladly support Vladimir Putin during World War III and even encourage him to do as he pleases to America’s allies.” Former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark called Trump’s comments “treasonous.”

To be clear, Trump’s beef with NATO has nothing to do with money. Trump has always misrepresented NATO as a sort of protection racket, but as Nick Paton Walsh of CNN put it today: “NATO is not an alliance based on dues: it is the largest military bloc in history, formed to face down the Soviet threat, based on the collective defense that an attack on one is an attack on all—a principle enshrined in Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty.”

On April 4, 1949, the United States and eleven other nations in North America and Europe came together to sign the original NATO declaration. It established a military alliance that guaranteed collective security because all of the member states agreed to defend each other against an attack by a third party. At the time, their main concern was resisting Soviet aggression, but with the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Russian president Vladimir Putin, NATO resisted Russian aggression instead. 

Article 5 of the treaty requires every nation to come to the aid of any one of them if it is attacked militarily. That article has been invoked only once: after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, after which NATO-led troops went to Afghanistan. 

In 2006, NATO members agreed to commit at least 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP, a measure of national production) to their own defense spending in order to make sure that NATO remained ready for combat. The economic crash of 2007–2008 meant a number of governments did not meet this commitment, and in 2014, allies pledged to do so. Although most still do not invest 2% of their GDP in their militaries, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014 motivated countries to speed up that investment.

On the day NATO went into effect, President Harry S. Truman said, “If there is anything inevitable in the future, it is the will of the people of the world for freedom and for peace.” In the years since 1949, his observation seems to have proven correct. NATO now has 31 member nations.

Crucially, NATO acts not only as a response to attack, but also as a deterrent, and its strength has always been backstopped by the military strength of the U.S., including its nuclear weapons. Trump has repeatedly attacked NATO and said he would take the U.S. out of it in a second term, alarming Congress enough that last year it put into the National Defense Authorization Act a measure prohibiting any president from leaving NATO without the approval of two thirds of the Senate or a congressional law.

But as Russia specialist Anne Applebaum noted in The Atlantic last month, even though Trump might have trouble actually tossing out a long-standing treaty that has safeguarded national security for 75 years, the realization that the U.S. is abandoning its commitment to collective defense would make the treaty itself worthless. Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholtz called the attack on NATO’s mutual defense guarantee “irresponsible and dangerous,” and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said, “Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines our security.”

Applebaum noted on social media that “Trump's rant…will persuade Russia to keep fighting in Ukraine and, in time, to attack a NATO country too.” She urged people not to “let [Florida senator Marco] Rubio, [South Carolina senator Lindsey] Graham or anyone try to downplay or alter the meaning of what Trump did: He invited Russia to invade NATO. It was not a joke and it will certainly not be understood that way in Moscow.”

She wrote last month that the loss of the U.S. as an ally would force European countries to “cozy up to Russia,” with its authoritarian system, while Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) suggested that many Asian countries would turn to China as a matter of self-preservation. Countries already attacking democracy “would have a compelling new argument in favor of autocratic methods and tactics.” Trade agreements would wither, and the U.S. economy would falter and shrink.

Former governor of South Carolina and Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley, whose husband is in the military and is currently deployed overseas, noted: “He just put every military member at risk and every one of our allies at risk just by saying something at a rally.” Conservative political commentator and former Bulwark editor in chief Charlie Sykes noted that Trump is “signaling weakness,… appeasement,…  surrender…. One of the consistent things about Donald Trump has been his willingness to bow his knee to Vladimir Putin. To ask for favors from Vladimir Putin…. This comes amid his campaign to basically kneecap the aid to Ukraine right now. People ought to take this very, very seriously because it feels as if we are sleepwalking into a global catastrophe…. ” 

President Joe Biden asked Congress to pass a supplemental national security bill back in October of last year to provide additional funding for Ukraine and Israel, as well as for the Indo-Pacific. MAGA Republicans insisted they would not pass such a measure unless it contained border security protections, but when Senate negotiators actually produced such protections earlier this month, Trump opposed the measure and Republicans promptly killed it. 

There remains a bipartisan majority in favor of aid to Ukraine, and the Senate appears on the verge of passing a $95 billion funding package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. In part, this appears to be an attempt by Republican senators to demonstrate their independence from Trump, who has made his opposition to the measure clear and, according to Katherine Tulluy-McManus and Ursula Perano of Politico, spent the weekend telling senators not to pass it. South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, previously a Ukraine supporter, tonight released a statement saying he will vote no on the measure.

Andrew Desiderio of Punchbowl News recorded how Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) weighed in on the issue during debate today: “This is not a stalemate. This guy [Putin] is on life support… He will not survive if NATO gets stronger.” If the bill does not pass, Tillis said, “You will see the alliance that is supporting Ukraine crumble.” For his part, Tillis wanted no part of that future: “I am not going to be on that page in history.” 

If the Senate passes the bill, it will go to the House, where MAGA Republicans who oppose Ukraine funding have so far managed to keep the measure from being taken up. Although it appears likely there is a majority in favor of the bill, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) tonight preemptively rejected the measure, saying that it is nonstarter because it does not address border security.  

Tonight, Trump signaled his complete takeover of the Republican Party. He released a statement confirming that, having pressured Ronna McDaniel to resign as head of the Republican National Committee, he is backing as co-chairs fervent loyalists Michael Whatley, who loudly supported Trump’s claims of fraud after the 2020 presidential election, and his own daughter-in-law Lara Trump, wife of Trump’s second son, Eric. Lara has never held a leadership position in the party. Trump also wants senior advisor to the Trump campaign Chris LaCivita to become the chief operating officer of the Republican National Committee.

This evening, Trump’s lawyers took the question of whether he is immune from prosecution for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election to the Supreme Court. Trump has asked the court to stay last week’s ruling of the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals that he is not immune. A stay would delay the case even further than the two months it already has been delayed by his litigation of the immunity issue. Trump’s approach has always been to stall the cases against him for as long as possible. If the justices deny his request, the case will go back to the trial court and Trump could stand trial.  

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[beardedmrbean]

Defense Minister Atanas Zapryanov announced that Bulgaria intends to raise its defense spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2032. He made the statement during a forum in Sofia focused on strengthening defense ties with Germany and exploring current trends in the sector.

Zapryanov said the 2% of GDP already allocated for defense in 2024 - a long-standing NATO benchmark - is no longer sufficient. He explained that to ensure successful modernization of the Bulgarian armed forces, the government has committed to gradually increase spending to between 2.5% and 3%, eventually reaching 3.5% as a baseline level by the end of the decade.

Speaking on broader security concerns, Zapryanov described Russia as the most direct and serious threat to Euro-Atlantic security. He stressed the importance of long-term preparedness, particularly regarding regional challenges in the Black Sea and Southeastern Europe. He added that Bulgaria is working to strengthen its national defense within NATO’s collective strategy and the EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy.

The Minister also emphasized the role of Bulgaria’s own defense industry in this process. According to him, the Ministry of Defense is ready to partner with domestic firms to improve and expand defense capabilities, and will support initiatives that align with strategic needs.

Zapryanov’s comments come in the context of broader discussions across the Alliance. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte recently called for increased defense investments in light of the geopolitical standoff with Russia. U.S. President Donald Trump has gone even further, urging NATO members to raise their defense budgets to 5% of GDP. Rutte has floated a compromise, suggesting defense spending be set at 3.5%, with 1.5% specifically earmarked for infrastructure.

Bulgaria, Zapryanov noted, plans to make use of new EU mechanisms to allow for more flexibility in defense-related expenditures while still maintaining a fiscally conservative policy in anticipation of eurozone accession. He spoke after attending a Bucharest-9 (B-9) meeting of regional leaders in Vilnius, Lithuania.

Meanwhile, the European Commission has already moved toward loosening spending constraints for defense. In early March, EC President Ursula von der Leyen presented a rearmament plan that would exempt defense investments from standard budgetary restrictions. The proposal includes redirecting cohesion funds toward military purposes and unlocking €150 billion in loans for the purchase of defense systems, including ammunition, missiles, drones, and air defense platforms.

[theculturedmarxist]

UK defence faces 'inflection point' in dangerous world, minister Shapps says

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uk-commits-20000-military-personnel-nato-exercise-europe-2024-01-15/

LONDON, Jan 15 (Reuters) - This year must mark an "inflection point" to decide the future of British defence, minister Grant Shapps said on Monday, setting out steps to better protect the nation against threats posed by a number of conflicts that are "likely to grow".

In a speech setting out his view that 2024 will see the world become more dangerous and require Britain and its allies to deal with "irrational" powers, Shapps said the government was striving to increase defence spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product - something he urged other democratic nations to follow.

"In five years' time, we could be looking at multiple theatres including Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Ask yourself ... is it more likely that that number grows or reduces? I suspect we all know the answer. It's likely to grow," the defence minister said. "So 2024 must mark an inflection point."

He said Britain was spending more money in cash terms on defence than it ever had, adding the government was increasing funds for modernising its nuclear deterrent and replenishing stocks and should continue to do so, while studiously refusing to call directly for additional funds.

"We've made the critical decision to set out our aspiration to reach 2.5% of GDP on defence and as we stabilise and grow this economy, we'll continue to strive to reach that as soon as possible," he said.

Haven't learned a fucking thing from Ukraine or Israel have they

[mariacallous]

German voters go to the polls today but it is a different world from when the campaign began only a few weeks ago.

Nearly 60 million ­people are choosing a government that will have to grapple with the breakdown of the transatlantic alliance under Donald Trump and new threats to European security just as the country’s vaunted economic model is hitting the skids.

If the polls are correct, the man leading that administration will be conservative opposition chief Fried­rich Merz, a corporate lawyer with a decades-long desire to be chancellor despite never ­serving in government. His in-tray will be staggering. “The big expectations ­mirror the big challenges he’ll face from day one of his likely chancellor­ship,” news weekly Der Spiegel said. “An ­aggressive Russia, a hostile America and a Europe that is drifting apart: Merz could be tested more strongly […] than any ­chancellor of the postwar republic.”

Merz recently admitted that Trump’s effective abandonment of European defence pledges and his vice-president JD Vance’s aggressive backing of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) heralded ­“tectonic shifts in the political and economic power centres of the world”. Germany, he said, would not emerge unscathed.

Trump’s undermining of Nato and betrayal of Ukraine are “a wrenching punch to the gut”, said Ursula Münch, director of the Academy for Political Education thinktank in Bavaria, particularly for Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which has “solidarity and friendship with the US deep in its DNA”. “The ­biggest ­challenge [for Ger­many] will be ­mustering a united show of strength by the EU and the UK.”

Germany, the world’s third largest economic power and most populous EU country, was already struggling with the muddled legacy of Angela Merkel, one of Merz’s predecessors as CDU leader and his longtime nemesis.

Her 16-year tenure as ­chancellor was marked by reliance on cheap Russian gas, brisk trade with China and Washington’s military and ­intelligence might, allowing Germany to focus on what it did best: manufacturing cars and machine tools while holding the EU together.

Merkel’s successor, Olaf Scholz, took office in December 2021 buoyed by hopes for a fresh approach to long-neglected problems with a technocratic “traffic light” coalition named for the party colours of his centre-left Social Democrats, the pro-business Free Democrats and the ecologist Greens. But only weeks later, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine blew the best-laid plans of Scholz’s “coalition for progress” permanently off course.

Within days of the war’s outbreak, Scholz declared a Zeitenwende (turning point), establishing a €100bn (£85bn) fund to beef up Germany’s paltry military equipment stocks and pledging to meet a Nato commitment of defence spending at 2% of GDP. By 2024, he had kept that promise.

But the halt of Russian energy supplies sent prices soaring, ­spurring galloping post-pandemic inflation and weighing heavily on industries such as steel and chemicals. Scholz’s government scrambled to find new fuel sources while pushing ­renewables.

China, in the meantime, ­pivoted from buying German vehicles to undercutting them with cheaper models, particularly in the EV sector.

At a recent televised debate Merz, who left politics for business for 12 years after losing a power struggle with Merkel, accused Scholz’s government of economic “incompetence” after two years of recession. Scholz shot back: “I didn’t invade Ukraine!”

Scholz’s coalition finally ­collapsed in November – within hours of Trump winning the US election – over a still unresolved conundrum around the strict “debt brake” that keeps ­federal government annual ­borrowing to 0.35% of GDP. The implosion ­triggered a general ­election seven months ahead of schedule.

But Scholz’s era of political turmoil might soon look like halcyon days.

Germany’s true Zeitenwende is still to come, argues veteran political ­analyst Herfried Münkler, as Berlin faces up to the painful realisation that the postwar order that welcomed the country back into the community of nations after the Nazi atrocities has come to an end.

“The biggest loser of the latest developments is Germany, not only because its economic power has shrunk but also because German poli­ticians relied unconditionally to the end on the transatlantic relationship,” he wrote in the newspaper Die Zeit.

“The next government will have to take great pains to reassert German leadership in Europe.”

Reforming the debt brake will be essential to that process, said Sascha Huber, a political scientist at the University of Mainz, as more defence ­spending will have to be financed with new debt. “But the first challenge will be ­forming a stable coalition,” he said.

Because he is unlikely to win a majority, Merz has said he aims to build a new ­governing ­alliance by Easter, setting up long weeks of tense negotiations in which Germany will be focused inward. His most likely partner will be Scholz’s Social Democrats but he may need yet another party to make the maths add up – a recipe for further volatility, Münch said.

Meanwhile, surveys suggest the anti-immigration, anti-Islam AfD will double support from the last ­election, to win about 20% of the vote. It has been polling in second place to Merz’s CDU-CSU bloc for more than a year. It calls for mass ­deportation of migrants, a resumption of Russian gas imports, an end to military aid for Ukraine and exiting the eurozone.

During the election campaign there has been a series of attacks in which the suspect is from a migrant background, which some analysts believe could boost AfD support. The latest came on Friday, when a Spanish tourist was stabbed at Berlin’s Holocaust memorial. Prosecutors saidon Saturday that the suspect was a 19-year-old Syrian refugee who appeared to have planned to kill Jews.

Although most analysts expect Merz to maintain the “firewall” ­barring formal cooperation with the far right, a strong AfD finish would greatly complicate his efforts to produce a reliable majority.

“I think it will be essential to a centrist coalition for him to make clear that he won’t accept support from the AfD again,” Huber said, referring to a taboo-busting move by Merz last month to solicit far-right votes in parliament for hardline migration proposals. “Otherwise it won’t work. Tthe AfD will always be trying to drive a wedge between the coalition parties.”

Germany has long been considered among the most politically stable of the world’s big democracies, only triggering snap elections roughly every two decades. But that pace could accelerate if the political fringes grow in influence, Huber said.

That sense of looming turbulence, with the AfD waiting in the wings, has troubled many voters, drawing hundreds of thousands on to the streets in recent weeks in defence of democracy.

At a recent protest co-organised by senior activists Grannies Against the Right (Omas Gegen Rechts) in the eastern town of Teltow, 70-year-old retired history teacher Sabine Ludwig said she saw “scary” echoes of the Weimar era, a century ago.

“There won’t be endless chances for the democratic centrist parties to come together and keep the AfD out,” she said. “I hope they seize it.”