NATO defence spending
- Thread starter zen
- Start date
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 2,214
- Reaction score
- 3,364
If he wants to insist on increasing defence spending to 5% NATO wide* (US at 3.4% I believe), then I'd suggest the rest of NATO agrees on the condition that only spending for defence of the NATO area** counts.
The US spending more as a percentage of GDP than the rest of NATO on defence is absolutely reasonable, because a large fraction of US defence spending is devoted to out-of-area threats in the Pacific that don't affect the rest of NATO. But insisting the other NATO countries spend the same is somewhat less reasonable. Article 5 can still apply, but a single country dragging the rest of NATO into out-of-area commitments shouldn't compel defence spending.
* And I'm not averse to that, seems sensible in the current geopolitical situation.
** Defining which should make for some interesting diplomatic bunfights
The US spending more as a percentage of GDP than the rest of NATO on defence is absolutely reasonable, because a large fraction of US defence spending is devoted to out-of-area threats in the Pacific that don't affect the rest of NATO. But insisting the other NATO countries spend the same is somewhat less reasonable. Article 5 can still apply, but a single country dragging the rest of NATO into out-of-area commitments shouldn't compel defence spending.
* And I'm not averse to that, seems sensible in the current geopolitical situation.
** Defining which should make for some interesting diplomatic bunfights
There is an argument which can be made in a similar vein about the US military presence in Germany (and elsewhere, e.g. in Europe or Japan, of course) too, BTW. I never liked to draw too much attention to it in discussions, because I shared the opinion that Europe should aim for a much greater degree of self-sufficiency in defence matters. But privately it always irked me that US overseas bases were invariably portrayed as some kind of purely altruistic, benevolent gift - it isn't as one-sided as all that. Without such logistics hubs as Ramstein etc., US global power projection would be far more costly, including operations that have nothing whatsoever to do with NATO or European interests.
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 2,214
- Reaction score
- 3,364
I've been thinking about this for a while, but I haven't found a good way to break out what percentage of US defence spending currently goes to non-NATO areas.
Areas you could argue about:
Japan
Korea
Indian Ocean
The Gulf
The Red Sea (Complications, Djibouti, which technically isn't French, but ... )
Israel
Oceania (complications, French and UK territories)
Australasia (complications for the UK, only, as AUKUS)
Africom (complications, North African countries with Mediterranean shorelines)
And as historical precedent, we might consider NATO involvement in the Korean, Vietnam and Falklands Wars.
- Joined
- 25 January 2020
- Messages
- 1,244
- Reaction score
- 1,829
This is a completely ridiculous and unfair idea. Sure, European NATO should rack up the defence budgets, but 5% is not going to be popular or is unlikely to be even sustainable. I'm fairly certain most NATO nations haven't spent that much as a share of their GDP sine the 60's, and the US certainly hasn't since the end of the Cold War.
3% is a much more realistic goal, but meeting that would take time. It's certainly not happening next year, as most countries have already locked in their budgets.
Like it or not, the United States became the world's policeman after World War II. Since Europe was still rebuilding, the U.S. considered itself the primary provider of everything needed to shore up Western Europe should Soviet intentions toward it turn hostile. The President-elect has said he wants NATO members to pay their fair share and appears willing to negotiate the final number. Recent problems in France, Germany and the UK regarding available monies is a consideration. Keep in mind that the U.S. has troops deployed in many countries. These are forward bases of operation for all intents and purposes. In 1997, a think tank was formed called Project for the New American Century. It outlined America's role for the next 100 years. Keep in mind that civilians are not privy to confidential military planning. That discussions concerning defense spending will have to occur behind closed doors. Two parties, individual leaders and the people of each country, need to be convinced that such spending is justified going forward.
I seem to recall that NATO is a collective Defence Alliance and that no one country or indeed politician dictates what everyone is to do or did I miss an announcement re a change...?
I also seem to recall that the only time the much vaunted NATO Article 5 has been enacted was actually to assist the USA.
A brief review:
1952. The Ground Observer Corps in the United States, the second incarnation of the organization, now consists of 750,000 volunteers. A similar organization in Canada is called the RCAF Ground Observer Corps.
In 1954, the Pinetree and Mid-Canada Lines are judged inadequate for warning of the approach of Soviet bombers. Work begins on the Distant Early Warning Line which crosses Canada, Greenland and Iceland.
North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) is formed in 1957.
1959. The Soviets and the United States deploy ICBMs. Alaska and Hawaii are both granted statehood.
The U.S. and Canada have CIRVIS or Communication Instructions for Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings. Reports are sent to filter centers who send them on to appropriate local and national commands.
1960. U.S. B-52 bombers begin patrols over major U.S. target cities.
1952. The Ground Observer Corps in the United States, the second incarnation of the organization, now consists of 750,000 volunteers. A similar organization in Canada is called the RCAF Ground Observer Corps.
In 1954, the Pinetree and Mid-Canada Lines are judged inadequate for warning of the approach of Soviet bombers. Work begins on the Distant Early Warning Line which crosses Canada, Greenland and Iceland.
North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) is formed in 1957.
1959. The Soviets and the United States deploy ICBMs. Alaska and Hawaii are both granted statehood.
The U.S. and Canada have CIRVIS or Communication Instructions for Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings. Reports are sent to filter centers who send them on to appropriate local and national commands.
1960. U.S. B-52 bombers begin patrols over major U.S. target cities.
No increase in European defense budgets will serve to increase our security.
How many warships does Europe have?... hundred?... two hundred?
How many are fighting the Houthis?
How many are returning attacks instead of simply intercepting missiles without returning fire?
Would this situation change if Europe had three hundred ships?
Our enemies know well the weakness of our leaders, they educated them.
Divide and conquer.
https://www.moddb.com/mods/divide-and-conquer
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/introduction-to-divide-and-conquer-algorithm/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide-and-conquer_algorithm
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1422520/Divide_and_Conquer_The_Board_Game/?l=latam
How many warships does Europe have?... hundred?... two hundred?
How many are fighting the Houthis?
How many are returning attacks instead of simply intercepting missiles without returning fire?
Would this situation change if Europe had three hundred ships?
Our enemies know well the weakness of our leaders, they educated them.
Divide and conquer.
https://www.moddb.com/mods/divide-and-conquer
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/introduction-to-divide-and-conquer-algorithm/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide-and-conquer_algorithm
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1422520/Divide_and_Conquer_The_Board_Game/?l=latam
Attachments
As the saying goes, we are all in this together. The point is this: Europe, pay your fair share.
That's all.
Europe has been under the U.S. defense umbrella for a long time. I think it's fair to ask for higher spending in the face of threats from Russia, China and North Korea.
That's all.
Europe has been under the U.S. defense umbrella for a long time. I think it's fair to ask for higher spending in the face of threats from Russia, China and North Korea.
A long time does not mean forever, our enemies just have to wait for the Americans to get tired and leave as they did in Cuba, in Vietnam, in Iran, in Afghanistan and as they will surely do in Syria next year.
It won't even be necessary to shoot, Europe is already pre-digested.
Unfortunately it is not conspiracy theories but the daily news, I wish they were not true, but the reality is very persistent.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024...-power-which-countries-are-for-and-against-it
https://www.euractiv.com/section/en...ountries-form-anti-nuclear-alliance-at-cop26/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Germany
https://www.reuters.com/business/au...g-challenges-european-auto-sector-2024-10-11/
https://www.cbtnews.com/volkswagen-...er-planned-plant-closures-amid-profit-plunge/
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/index_en
https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/european-climate-law_en
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/environment/environment-and-the-law/eu-environmental-law/
https://ecomundo.eu/en/blog/eu-environmental-policies-green-deal-key-regulations
https://iucn.org/news/202406/eu-adopts-its-new-nature-restoration-law
Stop all deportations – Abolish Frontex European Campaign
abolishfrontex.org
Timeline: Deadly attacks on Christmas markets in Europe
A car ramming into a crowded Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany, has reignited safety concerns and serves as a stark reminder of previous attacks on Christmas markets across Europe, including attacks in Berlin, Strasbourg, and other cities in recent years. #EuropeNews
www.euronews.com
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,748
- Reaction score
- 4,366
Russia's invasion of Ukraine has already caused European defence budgets to increase. However, what has withered for decades can't be restored immediately by blindly spending money. True enough, it all starts with more funds, but simply ordering equipment will not fix what ails European defence. Replenishing stocks, training personnel, fix neglected equipment and infrastructure will take time. What also takes time, actually getting the new equipment - get a production slot - then see it built - get more personnel - train them to use the equipment.
Europe has been rudely awakened. Fixes will take time. I wish it was different, but this is where we are.
If we need time to be prepared to defend ourselves and the enemy knows it... well, that's almost an invitation. I think I'm going to invest in some land in Argentina.
Attachments
Null
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 16 December 2024
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 13
Trump flip flopped from calling Zelensky a salesman in a debate, to now continuing support which I would not give 100% re-assurance on if his own son and close buddy Elon openly mock Zelensky on Twitter. Ukraine, I heard is cutting off the gas in Europe on January 1st(might be completely useless, Russia opened up their gas lines to China not too long ago) and you need fuel to have a lot of energy and a lot of energy to produce shells, rockets and armored vehicles assuming that is where the 5% requirement for spending will go.
Could Europe afford paying 5% if Ukraine does go through with the idea of cutting off their gas? It's still going to take a while to have a gas pipeline be built running from the UAE, Syria and Turkey before reaching Europe.
Could Europe afford paying 5% if Ukraine does go through with the idea of cutting off their gas? It's still going to take a while to have a gas pipeline be built running from the UAE, Syria and Turkey before reaching Europe.
I can't agree. Some think established budgets are inflexible. In emergencies, emergency spending does occur. A coordinated response between Europe and the U.S. needs to happen right now. I'm sure, as during World War II, a Lend-Lease program can be established quickly. Right after the Russians left Poland, American tanks were sent in. A recent threat by Russia against U.S. supplied ABM batteries in Poland, Romania and Turkey was made.
A statement was made by the Russians regarding the war against the Ukraine. Right now, Putin is maneuvering his forces to get the best deal possible when final negotiations begin with the Trump administration. In brief, an agreement where the Ukraine cannot join NATO or a similar organization. To recognize the annexation of Crimea. The Ukraine may lose a few pieces of land on the eastern border, but I doubt it.
I find it very shortsighted that some countries in Europe decided to forgo maintaining a deterrent force in order to put the money into other things. Examples being ways to increase trade. Like opening the Channel Tunnel shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. How about the Brenner Base Tunnel? Anybody? If you're not fighting a war, right now, the answer is to increase trade and build tunnels? Seriously? The Yanks will take care of the Russians?
Europe already imports 19% of its gas from Algeria, we have already had an Algerian gas pipeline for years and all the American gas we want to buy. Money is no problem Europe has its own currency and can cheat all kinds of tax tricks with the Euro at the expense of future generations.
But ask future generations if they want to be Ukrainian.
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,748
- Reaction score
- 4,366
Russia has its hands full in Ukraine, that's one of the things that caused the fall of the Assad regime. Europe has some time to fix what needs to be fixed. Better use that time.
European LNG terminals have been and are being constructed/expanded in a hurry.
There is very little gas to be cut off by Ukraine anymore.
- Joined
- 11 March 2012
- Messages
- 3,164
- Reaction score
- 3,007
The current US-led defense umbrella reflects the state of the world in 1945, when the US Navy was the largest navy in the world followed by Britain and Canada. Britain was exhausted after two World Wars. The Bretton-Woods Agreements imposed free-trade on most of the former European colonies in Africa, etc. Since US corporations wanted to trade with those former European colonies, they needed lots of ships and they needed the USN to protect those ships. To this day, the USN has as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined. Yes, American tax-payers are tired of paying to protect other nations' ships.
Fast forward to 1973 and rising oil prices started making long-range trade less attractive. Oil prices have only risen since then. In the long run, North America is going to have to rebuild our manufacturing capability to meet demand in the face of ever-increasing shipping costs. Re-building factories takes a few years, but it will take more than a decade to train all the new staff ... as Baby-Boomers retire.
I can agree with what Trump says about NATO allies paying more of their share of defense costs. 5 percent of GDP is probably unrealistic short of a war. Most other politicians would be happy to meet the 2 percent promise.
While Canada has long fallen short of the 2 percent goal, many Canadian tax-payers are tired of the current gov't wasting money on ??????? and many would like to see increased spending on patrolling Canada's High Arctic, etc. Canada will probably have a federal election in 2025 and it does not look good for the current Trudeau Junior gov't. First guess is a more conservative gov't as we have seen in many recent elections in Europe, etc. Keep in mind that historically the Canadian Progressive Conservative Party has also made plenty of cut-backs to Canadian defense spending. As for the third-place, left-of-center New Democratic Party .... they tend to be peaceniks who believe in peace-love-and-understanding ..... tell that to Mr. Poutine!
Hah!
Hah!
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Messages
- 2,550
- Reaction score
- 1,801
Remember, when Trump says 'NATO members should spend 5% of GDP on defence', he means 'NATO members should spend 5% of GDP on US made weapons systems' . . .
This is all part of the MAGA agenda, more business, jobs, exports for the USA. Remember 'The Arsenal of Democracy' ?
cheers,
Robin.
How many years did it take UK to repay American loans, wouldn't it be better to buy now before anyone wants to sell?
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,748
- Reaction score
- 4,366
Mr T also demands Europe (hey! China! pay attention!) buy more US oil and gas. To reduce the US trade deficit. Europe is already relying on US (and other) LNG to compensate for banning Russian gas, so, work in progress.
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 2,214
- Reaction score
- 3,364
I must have missed the announcement that Austria was joining NATO.
ETA (Had to check I was right on dates):
The clue is in the dates.
1986 Treaty of Canterbury signed by those notorious Cold War Doves Thatcher and Mitterand
1988 Chunnel construction begins.
1989 Fall of the Berlin Wall
1991 Dissolution of Warsaw Pact
1991 Dissolution of Soviet Union
1994 Chunnel opens
TLDR: The Chunnel is a Cold War logistics project
Possibly bad form to criticise other countries for pro-trade infrastructure spending when Trump is proposing a trade war against everyone.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,748
- Reaction score
- 4,366
Cut X and Meta etcetera down to size. Nurture free press. Trace funding for political parties, publish the results.
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 2,214
- Reaction score
- 3,364
Have you seriously forgotten the massive scope of the US drawdown of forces in the 1990s? Entire classes of ships sent to the breakers (all the CGNs, for instance, no matter how new). Army Divisions and AF Wings axed, multiple rounds of BRAC, SAC stood down, Midgetman cancelled. Seventh Army stood down, V Corps stood down, VII Corps stood down. 70,000 US troops withdrawn from Europe in 1992 alone.
Reagan's 600 Ship Navy now stands at 470, and not all are deployable.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,187
- Reaction score
- 10,245
I'd like to see NATO members paying the full 2% first.
Going from 2% to 5% means more than doubling the amount of spending on the military. While it probably needs to happen to address decades of underfunding and neglect, I don't see that being politically possible.
Crud, I'm not even sure 3% would be possible.
Going from 2% to 5% means more than doubling the amount of spending on the military. While it probably needs to happen to address decades of underfunding and neglect, I don't see that being politically possible.
Crud, I'm not even sure 3% would be possible.
- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 4,050
- Reaction score
- 3,118
For decades the US have been picking up the tab we europeans SHOULD have had the round things to. If we ran this campaign properly we could make something of our defence insutry for other uses too, clean energy etc. Having said that it needs to be done by all parties and ring fenced against political change or we end up with aircraft carriers and no catapults. Oh, hang on.....
Fact is, if we reform our defence industries the money can remain in our own nation for the most part with tax going back into national coffers but investin in our own nation seems to be seen as bad form and money for old fogies/friends of politics an existential threat to national security.
After all, while investment goes on shrinking, the threats do not.
Yes I know but, I feel lioke Jeremy Clarkson and the other angry old gits today, as on many other days and at this time of year, think of all the people who could still have been around with their fam,ilies if some of us had the round things to prevent their murder/genocide.
Mods, this affects the defence of our homes, is not intended to be political but does impact how we go about doing so.
I hope we ALL have a better 2025.
ItalianAFDFail
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 10 January 2021
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 91
5% is both impossible to implement for all of us and will be not only unpopular but impractical, already by raising the nations that don't pay 2% to 2% will be a good start (Italy for example had the creep up from 1.42 to 1.62% of gdp and already the armed forces are able to buy 282 tanks, 1050 IFVs and also 24 new EF2000, imagine what italy could do with just the complete 2 % compared to this 1.62 and already we have a locally very strong nation) i would not listen to Trump honestly but i would just ask for all of us to pay the 2% something i would be glad to support, i wouldn't support a 5/6% GDP for defense in NATO
ItalianAFDFail
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 10 January 2021
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 91
exactly, and he doesn't understand Europe isn't going to buy always american equipment, and i doubt europe would buy more than just some systems from the US anymore considering how baddly that ruined the European Defense companies
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,138
- Reaction score
- 6,292
The nub of the problem is Taiwan. Every Western government recognised that Taiwan is part of China.
This suited us in a world where China feared the Soviet Union more than it did the West.
It is no more possible to prevent China from trashing Taiwan than it has been to help Hong Kong.
The United States believes it can go head to head with China and win. But like Ukraine and Czechoslovakia in 1938 what will be the price?
Back in the 1950s NATO members like UK, France and Turkey rallied to help expel N Korea from S Korea. This helped reinforce the Alliance and justify US commitments in Europe.
In 2024 Europe is at best ambivalent to China and not prepared to face it down.
This suited us in a world where China feared the Soviet Union more than it did the West.
It is no more possible to prevent China from trashing Taiwan than it has been to help Hong Kong.
The United States believes it can go head to head with China and win. But like Ukraine and Czechoslovakia in 1938 what will be the price?
Back in the 1950s NATO members like UK, France and Turkey rallied to help expel N Korea from S Korea. This helped reinforce the Alliance and justify US commitments in Europe.
In 2024 Europe is at best ambivalent to China and not prepared to face it down.
I think many/most European/NATO (and beyond - Australia for example) nations realise that an increase in Defence spending /capability/capacity is required. Look at recent comments from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte calling for increased spending. The issue with comments from trump though is that they carry an implied "or else" (anyone need reminding re his comments re encouraging Russia to do“whatever the hell they want”?) This is the part (especially when combined with other comments) that in unacceptable and comes across as blackmail. Mobster diplomacy is unacceptable.
Last edited:
If not the Arsenal of Democracy, then who? Britain was bankrupt after the war. And things look bad in the UK right now. According to the Deputy Prime Minister, a 'black hole' consisting of billions of Pounds was created by the previous administration. My question to Parliament would be: Who is keeping track of expenditures? Where did that money go? Finance Ministers quitting or being let go by "peace, love and understanding" governments? Seriously? Trudeau scolding the United States after the last election for making the wrong choice? Support your country's defense, not ways and means to create Utopia right now. That is less likely to happen when you're dead or overrun by the enemy.
And to provide some context, here is NATO Defence spending as %GDP as of mid 2024:
As can be seen most are already at or above the desired 2% level. But to go to 5% is not something that is easily done as it means most will have to double their spends.
- Joined
- 25 January 2020
- Messages
- 1,244
- Reaction score
- 1,829
Yes but there is only so much that throwing money about will do. It will take time to build up to necessary levels. Cold War metrics are also outdated now, and the balance of power between Russia and Europe are in the latter's favour when compared to the days of the Warsaw Pact. So there is no reason for huge land armies from France, the UK and Germany any more; that will be covered by Poland.
There's been enough reserve storage for basically a year now, and the European energy industry has diversified its sources; Qatar and Algeria being two examples.
There has to be the willpower on both sides of the Atlantic, and that seems to be lost on both sides of the American political aisle.
Defence budgets should not eat away into infrastructure and trade. Both are necessary; such tunnels would make moving equipment around much easier, and trade is also extremely important if we wish to compete with the US.
