No one in NATO is boosting military spending to appease Donald Trump - it's the inevitable response to the realization that the largest NATO contributor is unreliable.

The recent "MAGA" line was an appeal to American investors to spend money here. It appropriated Trump's language, but that's the opposite of what he wants.

Carney campaigned in decreased reliance on the US, not on severing all ties.

Actual examples of appeasement would be things like ending the digital services tax, and I'm sure we'll see more like it when the CUSMA talks get started.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (10 children)

Trump demanded increased NATO spending and the countries did it. This isn't rocket science.

MAGA is a white supremacist phrase through and through. There is no excuse for repeating it.

And Carney did cancel the DST, and is fast-tracking LNG projects owned by Trump allies, and continues to put money down of F-35s, and now cancelled the streaming tax. Oh and signed contracts with a little old company called Palantir.

Genuinely asking: what would he have to do? Where is the line?

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Trump demanded increased NATO spending and the countries did it. This isn’t rocket science.

No, it's not rocket science. Trump continually threatens to abandon NATO and its allies, so everyone else has to pick up the slack. Not because he wants it, but because it's an absolute necessity. I really don't see a credible argument that Canada shouldn't be investing in defence.

MAGA is a white supremacist phrase through and through. There is no excuse for repeating it.

A defensible position to take, but I think Carney's intent in using it is fairly clear, whether you agree with it or not.

And Carney did cancel the DST

That's why I used it as an example. The article should have, but didn't. There are a number of things that could legitmately be held up as examples of "appeasement," but I don't think the article did so.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, it’s not rocket science. Trump continually threatens to abandon NATO and its allies, so everyone else has to pick up the slack. Not because he wants it, but because it’s an absolute necessity. I really don’t see a credible argument that Canada shouldn’t be investing in defence.

No one is saying "Canada shouldn't be investing in defence", they are saying we shouldn't be doubling or tripling our military budget to satisfy Trump's demands, and that we should take a "diplomacy first" approach to conflict. Anyway, for comparison: Iran's total military budget IIRC is $8 billion. We already spend many times this amount. Besides, NATO has only ever come to the aid of the US, never the other way around.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

we shouldn’t be doubling or tripling our military budget to satisfy Trump’s demands

I simply don't think many people would agree that that's the reason we're doing it.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

policy by polling is not a good way to form your own opinion. Do you think we should be doubling or tripling our military budget?

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I thought it was pretty clear that I do, for the reasons already stated.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago

I think I misread your previous comment. Regardless, both the 2% demand and the 5% demand were made by Trump, and the fact that other NATO countries are indeed spending a large chunk of those budgets on US weaponry should be all the indication that anyone needs that they are using Trump's feigned belligerence toward allies as an excuse to ramp up military spending and war posture, particularly in the far north, eg Greenland.

It's frankly unreal how many people can look at Carney's actions and still believe his words.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)