>No. The 2 percent standard is just a guideline, not a legally binding requirement. In 2006, even as the United States was increasing military spending because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, European allies were shrinking their military spending. NATO defense ministers that year adopted a guideline suggesting that each spend the equivalent of 2 percent of its annual economic output on its military — but it was a target, not a rule, and not endorsed by heads of state.
So the NATO 2% spending thing is: "just a guideline", "not a legally binding requirement", "a target, not a rule, and not endorsed by heads of state".
While the Paris Agreement is a formal treaty, signed in New York by a Representative of the United States, and then ratified by the US afterwards.
I don't see how you can compare the two side-by-side in any serious discussion.
I don't think mistermann was after a serious discussion, he seems to have very little idea about NATO and just parrots Trumps (inaccurate talking points). I may be wrong and perhaps he is off reading all the linked articles but I don't hold out much hope of that.
Is it possible to disagree in principle without parroting Trump's talking points?
I wonder if know it all's on the left will ever clue in that international relations are extremely nuanced rather than a hard science. Perhaps some people's relative willingness to cooperate is influenced by the level of respect and willingness to understand differing points of view.
I would argue this is a very important aspect of human relations and negotiations, and real world events I think support this theory quite well.
This is not a left or right issue. You said that in return for a climate change tariff on US goods you wanted EU nations to meet their spending agreements for NATO. Now multiple sources have been provided to you showing that the EU NATO members are doing great what they agreed to and that claiming that they are not paying their way is inaccurate at best and downright dishonest at worst. You are not responding to those facts and instead have turned it into a left Vs right issue.
Regardless of my political affiliation I am aware that international politics is nuanced, unfortunately your president is just learning that himself. And yes you can disagree in principal but you don't seem to understand the system so it is difficult to accept that you disagree in principal when your sole argument (which has been thoroughly debunked for you) is based on claims made by donald trump. Do you have any other issues with NATO that you disagree with?
You seem to be under the impression that Donald Trump was the first person to raise the issue of Europe pulling its financial weight in NATO, which is not true.
Indeed, there is no hard explicit contract stating a dollar amount that is owed by European governments to the US, there are only "targets". And according to the general sentiment on HN, I've now learned that the word "target" is a code word for literally no compensation, full stop.
There, I can acknowledge objective reality.
In turn I'll ask you this:
Do you think it is plausible that the US military presence in Europe has contributed in a material way to peace in the region? Yes or no?
Do you think the US bears an uncompensated financial burden for this military presence in Europe? Yes or no?
No. Yes, however it is a financial burden they have placed on themselves and they understand the trade off between the cost of the presence and the influence acquired.
>Are NATO nations violating a rule?
>No. The 2 percent standard is just a guideline, not a legally binding requirement. In 2006, even as the United States was increasing military spending because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, European allies were shrinking their military spending. NATO defense ministers that year adopted a guideline suggesting that each spend the equivalent of 2 percent of its annual economic output on its military — but it was a target, not a rule, and not endorsed by heads of state.
So the NATO 2% spending thing is: "just a guideline", "not a legally binding requirement", "a target, not a rule, and not endorsed by heads of state".
While the Paris Agreement is a formal treaty, signed in New York by a Representative of the United States, and then ratified by the US afterwards.
I don't see how you can compare the two side-by-side in any serious discussion.