NATO defence spending

[GTX]

Such as paying your bills?

What bills exactly?

 

[GTX]

Talk of any % funding level should remember that even the oft mentioned 2% of GDP is a guideline not a mandatory membership fee.

Defence expenditures and NATO’s 2% guideline

Funding NATO

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Talk of any % funding level should remember that even the oft mentioned 2% of GDP is a guideline not a mandatory membership fee.

https://www.nato.int/cps/is/natohq/topics_49198.htm

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

Perhaps the President-elect would be better off simply giving incentives to those who do spend that amount, instead of ruining the US's image for a few more decades

 

[edwest4]

I don't think the incoming President is worried about image. A list of changes within the U.S. will happen very quickly, along with a list of demands for the rest of the world. Take it or leave it.

 

[GTX]

Actually it is also interesting to note the %GDP support given to Ukraine which could arguably be considered indirect support for NATO and Europe's defence. Not sure what impact of this would be on overall Defence spending %GDP given the timeframes:

 

[DWG]

If our European partners are so heavily concerned about this, why aren't they spending adequate money on defending themselves against this possibility?

What makes you think we aren't? Remember, the US defence budget is spread over a large number of non-NATO contingencies, the European budgets aren't. I strongly suspect the US is one of the worst offenders if you look at percentage of GDP spent on defence of the NATO area.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Actually it is also interesting to note the %GDP support given to Ukraine which could arguably be considered indirect support for NATO and Europe's defence. Not sure what impact of this would be on overall Defence spending %GDP given the timeframes:

View attachment 753431

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania still remember what happened in June 1940

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

I don't think the incoming President is worried about image. A list of changes within the U.S. will happen very quickly, along with a list of demands for the rest of the world. Take it or leave it.

And when these demands aren't met, what will Mr.Trump do? He's digging himself a hole either way; if he takes overly-drastic action he'll lose trust from key allies. If not, he'll look like he is full of hot air (though this is not unknown). Image is incredibly important in maintaining alliances and trust from Allies; if a nation is viewed as untrustworthy, then that will affect defence and economic relationships and will probably push more countries towards other partners.

I frankly see such comments from people in positions such as his as self-defeating. Remember, the US needs the alliances it forms part of for power projection. I wonder how such comments will be taken by those who have US bases on their soil?

 

[Justo Miranda]

With a without Article 5, with a without NATO, the Americans are not going to go to war against Russia to defend a continent that has envied, despised and criticized them for seventy years. No more Private Ryan.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Without NATO they wouldn't have any say in European affairs either, so it goes both ways

 

[edwest4]

And when these demands aren't met, what will Mr.Trump do? He's digging himself a hole either way; if he takes overly-drastic action he'll lose trust from key allies. If not, he'll look like he is full of hot air (though this is not unknown). Image is incredibly important in maintaining alliances and trust from Allies; if a nation is viewed as untrustworthy, then that will affect defence and economic relationships and will probably push more countries towards other partners.

I think Mr. Trump has backbone. I think being direct is the way to go. The United States has led the free world for a long time. Europe took the collapse of the Soviet Union as a mandate to take defense dollars and spend them on other things. The threat never went away. It's only diminished somewhat. I think untrustworthy is the wrong word. I think indecision and complacency are the big threats today. All Trump is saying is, we need to plan for the future. Before the start of World War II, President Roosevelt stated the United States would not get involved in European conflicts. Not long after, we did. What Trump is doing is nothing new.

 

[Arjen]

Ha, ha and ha. Yes, Vlad the Impaler wants your country. For no particular reason...

What do you think is happening in Ukraine now?
Finland and Sweden joined NATO because Russia invaded Ukraine. Giving up centuries of neutrality in the case of Sweden. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, all of them are thanking their lucky stars they are inside NATO right now.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Thats about as stupid an idea as you could come up with.

So you have the huge costs of basing, training estate and equipment....all of which will need to be purchased and re-established.

But what do you get from it?

You lose a years worth of productivity and tax from those who can't find a way out of doing it....and the really smart and connected will always find a way...so you're left with the dregs, the unmotivated or the too stupid to escape the draft....

Who then spend the first quarter of their years enlistment in basic training...so are no use to anyone...thats 13 weeks....

They then go on to 2nd phase training....23 weeks, where you learn the basics of a trade or enough to go to a line battalion as an infantryman....a rookie still...

So after 39 weeks you've got a soldier trained, lets face it in the basics....they get sent to the Regt. for the last 13 weeks...where they barely learn enough actual practical experience to make the entire exercise worthwhile....and at the end of week 52 they're out the door....if they're lucky they might actually get 1 exercise in in that time....but you can't deploy them as they'll all be finished very soon....

Brilliant idea....Huge costs, deeply unpopular....and a vaguely trained soldier for 1/4 of the time.....

If you can't do it for at least 3 years it serves no purpose.

In modern warfare, for every soldier who fights on the front lines there are more than a hundred people who work to provide him with ammunition, food, clothing, communications, evacuation, medical services and disability or death pensions.

Can you imagine all those people making robots and their mothers free from the fear of receiving the bad news?

How long are our children going to continue stepping on mines as if they were in Monte Cassino?

 

[_Del_]

Without NATO they wouldn't have any say in European affairs either, so it goes both ways

I would be fine with this arrangement. Would Europeans be as happy, I wonder? And if so, why don't we do it instead of pretending it would be world ending.

 

[_Del_]

They are spending - if you look at the graph I posted back at Reply #53, you will see that the Baltic states are running at around ~3% of GDP. The reality for all nations though (not just the European ones, is that the cost of living pressures have put most democratic governments in a classic "guns vs butter" situation whereby they are under a lost of pressure to also spend on non-Defence related aspects.

And the rest of them?

Talk of any % funding level should remember that even the oft mentioned 2% of GDP is a guideline not a mandatory membership fee

Membership is also not mandatory as near as I can tell. As far as I can tell, the EU position is that they must balance their budget priorities with nicities instead of defense, while the US bears the cost, and they resent the US for wanting any influence in their SOI.

But also, if the US were to ever leave or otherwise decide to similarly prioritize our own citizens over europe instead of accepting this decades-old arrangement as a given, it would be catastrophic and irresponsible.

 

[edwest4]

Each European country is free to do what it wants. The incoming President is and will continue to make demands. No other country in the West has the ability to do that on an international level. If this jolts even one country out of a complacent, 'we'll deal with it later' mindset then that will be a good thing. Even though an agreement was in place, what did France and Britain do when Germany invaded in 1939? The answer, nothing.

 

[uk 75]

If one accepts that Western Europe has no interest in confronting China militarily over Taiwan some possibilities emerge.
The Trump Presidency is committed to withdrawing the US from a range of global institutions.. Europe will need to do deals with China and India as leaders in the vacuum left by US departure.
Subject to adequate security measures China remains a valuable trading partner and source of investment.
Until Putin (or his successors) can rebuild the Russian military Poland, Sweden and Finland (backed by a joint UK/French nuclear guarantee) are well placed to defend the Baltics and even take St Petersburg.
As the US loses its relevancy in the non-military sphere it will also find it harder to take Allies for granted.
Australia may want to defend itself against China but it also needs Chinese trade and investment.

 

[edwest4]

And the rest of them?

Membership is also not mandatory as near as I can tell. As far as I can tell, the EU position is that they must balance their budget priorities with nicities instead of defense, while the US bears the cost, and they resent the US for wanting any influence in their SOI.

But also, if the US were to ever leave or otherwise decide to similarly prioritize our own citizens over europe instead of accepting this decades-old arrangement as a given, it would be catastrophic and irresponsible.

Nothing good is waiting for Europe should a conflict arise. Europe would bear the brunt of any bad events on their own. Trump has said that the United States might consider leaving NATO. I think the agreement might be revised should individual countries in Europe not act now. Just joining NATO is fine but it doesn't pay for anything, does it? Europe can be responsible for itself. Would that be a bad thing?

 

[GTX]

Major cleanup of this thread just undertaken. Please try to keep discussion to the NATO funding topic.

 

[kqcke for you]

And to provide some context, here is NATO Defence spending as %GDP as of mid 2024:

View attachment 753327

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.

While many pay around 2% the effect they can achieve compared to others with a higher GDP is mutch smaller. Greece 3% are just a bit aboth 7 bn while germany's 2.12% (with Sondervermögen) are around 77 bn.

 

[kqcke for you]

Nothing good is waiting for Europe should a conflict arise. Europe would bear the brunt of any bad events on their own. Trump has said that the United States might consider leaving NATO. I think the agreement might be revised should individual countries in Europe not act now. Just joining NATO is fine but it doesn't pay for anything, does it? Europe can be responsible for itself. Would that be a bad thing?

Paying nothing and paying not the same / enough are 2 different things....

 

[_Del_]

Paying nothing and paying not the same / enough are 2 different things....

I think 3% is a fine target for anyone these days, if we accept the rhetoric about the dire threats the West is facing.
Historically, the graph of spending has looked a lot different than it does since 2020, and this is getting dusted under the rug with new numbers including a post-Ukraine buildup.

Some of the richest countries in Europe are the worst offenders. I'm not a "disband NATO"- dove. But if our "partners" insist on locking us into an arrangement wherein we are unequally yoked, while resenting us the entire time, there is no need or desire to continue such a partnership under those circumstances.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And how would the US President go about withdrawing the US from NATO? Show your work.

The same way the US withdrew from the INF treaty. Because it's the North Atlantic Treaty.

US GDP: 27.36 trillion USD (2023)

Oh to be so broke!

GDP != government tax revenue.

When your interest payments on the national debt equal the amount spent on the military, it's time to stop taking loans out on things.

ETA: Also not quite sure how the US can afford to increase defence spending from 3.5% to Trump's 5% of GDP it's so broke

Stop taking loans out on things that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution would be a good start.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Major cleanup of this thread just undertaken. Please try to keep discussion to the NATO funding topic.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The same way the US withdrew from the INF treaty. Because it's the North Atlantic Treaty.

Withdrawal from NATO - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The United States has maintained longstanding support to NATO. Most recently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, enacted on December 22, 2023, prohibits the President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without approval of a two-third Senate super-majority or an act of Congress. The bill provision came amidst then-presidential candidate Donald Trump's mixed messages on NATO.[71]"

 

[yeetmahboi]

Perhaps the President-elect would be better off simply giving incentives to those who do spend that amount, instead of ruining the US's image for a few more decades

If there's not enough incentive right now then there will never be.

 

[_Del_]

If there's not enough incentive right now then there will never be.

"You absolutely must protect us from these imminent Russian hordes! Oh, spend some of our own money? We have other priorities. Maybe you should try to incentive us to spend more so we don't think poorly of you".

These are not positions to be taken seriously.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Each European country is free to do what it wants. The incoming President is and will continue to make demands. No other country in the West has the ability to do that on an international level. If this jolts even one country out of a complacent, 'we'll deal with it later' mindset then that will be a good thing. Even though an agreement was in place, what did France and Britain do when Germany invaded in 1939? The answer, nothing.

Doubling Europe's defense budget will not double our security, but Trump is a businessman who needs money for his country and follows a typical business tactic of creating the need before selling us the weapons. It is my sincere opinion that such weapons will be of no use in a deeply disunited Europe with leaders incapable of taking the possibility of war seriously, although they will be an excellent pretext for increasing taxes and sanctions. The history of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia is deliberately ignored in the face of the problems posed by climate change and gender parity in key positions in the European Commission.

‘Everyone is a pacifist between wars.

It is like being a vegetarian between meals.’

Colman McCarthy



‘A city is well-fortified which has a wall of men instead of brick.’

Lycurgus

 

[uk 75]

To remind us that even in the early 1980s the NATO Alliance had issues

View: https://youtu.be/IKQlQlQ6_pk?si=dU4-PQ_zARpy6tEB

 

[uk 75]

Bernard doesnt mention the West German Bundeswehr which thanks to the reforms of Helmut Schmidt as Defence Minister deployed not only the largest Army on the NATO Central Front but also the best equipped and trained.
Now that Germany is no longer NATO's frontline the same can be said of the Poles, Finns and Swedes today.
Spain and Portugal were only expected to make modest contributions to NATO defence because of their locations. This is even truer today.

 

[Justo Miranda]

I will quote from memory an anecdote by Moshe Dayan: "the solution for Israel would be to declare war on the United States, we immediately surrendered and asked for a Marshall Plan."

 

[_Del_]

Now that Germany is no longer NATO's frontline the same can be said of the Poles, Finns and Swedes today.
Spain and Portugal were only expected to make modest contributions to NATO defence because of their locations. This is even truer today.

The US being thousands of miles from the frontline should naturally be responsible for even more modest contribution, correct? I guess the continental powers should step up to the plate.

 

[Kat Tsun]

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.

Russia took part of Ukraine 10 years ago.

NATO has been having this exact same discussion for about 12 years now.

 

[apparition13]

Well then. Europe can sit back and enjoy the show. Free of any financial burden. The U.S. will intervene at some point as it did by the end of World War I and the final months of World War II. More of those Yanks in England I'm afraid...

Trump has tapped into the traditional U.S. foreign policy - isolationism. There won't be any rescue. The country is too divided, and too tired, and the instinct to retreat and turtle up too strong.

By the way, 5% is meaningless. Percentages don't count, it's people and weapons, and Europe need enough of both to manhandle Russia if needed without relying on Trump coming to its rescue.

 

[uk 75]

The US being thousands of miles from the frontline should naturally be responsible for even more modest contribution, correct? I guess the continental powers should step up to the plate.

In some ways this is already the case.
Whereas during the Cold War the US had sizeable ground and air units permanently based in Europe and focussed on its defence, such forces are mainly based in CONUS or elsewhere. Apart from stockpiles of B61 bombs there is no current equivalent of Lance or Pershing.
This does not matter as US air and naval power rather than its army is what makes it crucial to NATO. No amount of defence expenditure by European countries could replicate these.
US air and naval forces are a requirement with or without NATO. Noone in Europe is seriously suggesting that two US Army Corps should be based in Europe.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In some ways this is already the case.
Whereas during the Cold War the US had sizeable ground and air units permanently based in Europe and focussed on its defence, such forces are mainly based in CONUS or elsewhere. Apart from stockpiles of B61 bombs there is no current equivalent of Lance or Pershing.
This does not matter as US air and naval power rather than its army is what makes it crucial to NATO. No amount of defence expenditure by European countries could replicate these.
US air and naval forces are a requirement with or without NATO. Noone in Europe is seriously suggesting that two US Army Corps should be based in Europe.

Yet Europe is acting as if the US still has at least two Corps based in Europe (plus the BAOR)...

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

The US being thousands of miles from the frontline should naturally be responsible for even more modest contribution, correct? I guess the continental powers should step up to the plate.

It can be argued that due to the US's global commitments, that it may be one of the worst offenders in terms of how much of that deployment is actually going towards NATO. Not to say that such deployments aren't necessary, but we need to be realistic as well.

Yet Europe is acting as if the US still has at least two Corps based in Europe (plus the BAOR)...

Yet now we have a NATO whose border is several thousand kilometres east of where it used to be. The Warsaw Pact no longer exists, and the large armies that used to form it either no longer exist or are part of NATO. Poland is going to be the equivalent to the BAOR now, and let's not forget that Russia is also severely diminished.

Defence spending to me is not as big of an issue as the hybrid warfare going on against our democracies. It is very clear that the Russians are using bot farms and politicians in the West to influence people away from support for Ukraine and NATO. We've seen this with Orban and Fico, and this once again reared its ugly head in a very obvious fashion with Georgescu in Romania. How many more Russian-backed populists will gain influence? We have also seen direct hybrid action against our infrastructure. I'm not so worried about defence spending, rather, I'm worried about rhetoric and support. In this, many European states have lived up to their promises in regards to support for NATO and Ukraine, such as the UK, France and Poland, but to mention a few. Some others such as Germany should do a lot more. This is the main issue; lack of consistency. And this lack of consistency is what turns people away from trusting our institutions. Trump's rhetoric is also problematic for this reason. One day he's saying he'll pull out of NATO and stop supporting Ukraine, the next he's singing his praises about both. This is the issue I personally have with him and his policies more than anything else, and it will hurt the US in the long run. In regards to his statement for the 5%, it's clear he's doing it from a business standpoint, more than a geostrategic one, as that means more money for the US. However, past experience with American weapons procurement (e.g. integrating European weapons onto F-35) will probably backfire for the US.

Now, it's fairly obvious that Europe should be able to fend for itself. But even if we bring up the investment next year (the 2025 Budgets are all more or less settled), it will take years for the results to be shown, as has been shown in the ramp up of defence production in support of Ukraine from 2022 to the present. Europe definitely needs to invest in defence, but it needs to be seen as an investment into local (i.e. European) economies. There has to be a cultural shift in attitude towards defence as well, and I think the Invasion of Ukraine has prompted that, as many people who were once questioning the existence of NATO stood in support of its expansion. But the political environment needs to allow that to take place, and that requires both cohesion and consistency. Let us also remember however, CFE, which basically forced Western Europe to downsize, and began the downward spiral in the first place (granted, the current situation is note entirely CFE's fault, but there will always be people who think it would be hard to justify approaching the upper bounds of a treaty limit). And let us also not forget the various attempts by the US to undercut and dismantle the European defence industry for their own gain. If Trump really wishes to see the defence budgets (and defence productivity) increase, he will have to realise that it takes time.

 

[chimeric oncogene]

During the Cold War, the global economic center of gravity was in Europe. Europe was where the money and industrial might was, which was why it was imperative that the Russians not be allowed to conquer the rest of it (and by extension assimilate its industrial might). Thusly, the Central Front of the Cold War was in Europe, and with half of Europe already under the Communist yoke, American might was absolutely essential.

The Cold War was thirty five years ago; Western Europe is now as insulated from Russian power as it has ever been (by two layers of nations), and Eastern Europe is firmly outside Russia's grasp (Putin's legions could barely get past the Dneiper, even if the Ukrainian frontline collapsed tomorrow!).

Remember the traditional missions of NATO - keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.

Just keeping out the Russians can be done by the NATO frontline states - Turkey alone has half the GDP of Russia, Poland has forty percent of Russian GDP, Buglaria+Hungary+Romania+Finland are another fifty percent of Russian GDP! Turkey + Poland are, dollar for dollar, a match for the Ruskies . Poland is five Ukraines in dollar terms, and Polish state capacity far exceeds Ukrainian (or Russian for that matter).

(Edit: these figures I think are nominal, someone might want to see PPP - Russia is 6T, Turkey is 3.5T, Poland is 2T; but in view of other Russian state capacity weaknesses I think the point stands)

The Poles and so forth are happy to have an American nuclear umbrella, so the Americans can stay in with ease. Even a doomsday NATO political collapse would likely see a Polish-American bilateral security treaty continue to function. America can have alliances and bases without NATO.

The only benefit from keeping Germany in NATO, in theory, is to prevent Germany from going rogue and cutting off road and rail links from Rotterdam to Poland in the event of a crisis. But this seems ridiculously outlandish - the stuff of 90s technothrillers where the Germans and Russians scheme to divide Poland once more! - and is NATO really the best vehicle for this? Worst case, even if Germany or France got kicked out of NATO, would they ally with the Chinese? I really don't think so, I think there are enough levers to keep Germany in line, from American cultural soft power to French and British influence; Germany does not have the power to run around like that.

These days, with weakness at home and increasingly powerful nations in Eastern Europe, Germany can be kept down regardless of whether they're in NATO or not, and we've already discussed the other two things.

The question is what Europe is supposed to do on the world stage in this brave new world, because Europe isn't the center of the world anymore. Half the world population lives between the Indus River, Java and Hokkaido, and that's where the money is (by the end of the century, half the world will live in Africa). It's not just the Chinese either, although they're up for bat first - you've got the Indians, the Iranians, and the Saudis, all with their own ideas of what to do. Even if the Chinese falter, the Indians, Indonesians etc are going to be up for bat in the second half of the 21st century. An American conflict with China, even if victorious, would leave the US led world order very vulnerable to events in the Mideast, Southeast Asia, Africa, etc, as the past four years have demonstrated - so a US victory in a war against China is increasingly pyrrhic; you've saved your world order, but you've also doomed it.

Europe as it stands - unruly, disorganized, pacified, inert - is not going to join up with the Chinese to challenge American power any day of the week. Even if the Hungarians decide to join BRICS or the Greeks take up with the Indians or something silly, there are enough pieces on the chessboard of Europe to play everyone against each other and strategically deny it to any rising competitor. So the question is whether Europe can be additive to American power, and the transatlantic alliance forged into a bloc - to fend off players in the Mideast, Africa, East Asia in economic and military spheres. The traditional idea for that has been to rely on NATO, but the results have been disappointing so far (as Ukraine has demonstrated). There is need for some sort of shake-up.

Is it better to shake up NATO by say, ejecting the Germans and closing ranks among the frontline states, or keep compromising to keep the Germans in? Is a slimmer NATO more likely to be more robust to Chinese and future Indian overtures (if any) and more likely to be additive to US power rather than a drag on it? So the US has some leverage and some room to explore how it wants to go.

The budget thing is a symptom of the underlying contradictions in NATO as it stands and the changing global balance of power (and the US's uncertain strategic approach towards it), and while I lack the background to do a rigorous and thorough examination of the issue, I think it's interesting to think through different perspectives.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

The question is what Europe is supposed to do on the world stage in this brave new world, because Europe isn't the center of the world anymore

Let us not forget that the total population of Europe is nearly half a billion, which is still larger than the US and in excess of 3x that of Russia. The issue is that, unlike the US, we have 30+ countries each with unique identities and histories, and these all inevitable lead to quarrels. And in regards to Russia, we've kind of moved away from forced assimilation practices.

Is it better to shake up NATO by say, ejecting the Germans and closing ranks among the frontline states, or keep compromising to keep the Germans in?

Kicking out member states for simply not following a guideline is absurd; there are much better ways of encouraging payments. For instance, better trade or defence agreements between the US and the states who pay more than 2%. It's not like the US will lose out, more trading partners is usually better, as it allows more money to flow into and out of the States. This is why I think the economic policy of Trump to be a bit silly, simply putting tariffs on everyone is not going to help the US, I would argue it would work against it.

 

[chimeric oncogene]

for simply not following a guideline is absurd

As I note in the last part of my (admittedly rambly and long) post, the guideline is not the issue.

The budget fight is a strategic and political debate over the role of NATO and how/whether countries in Europe can contribute to US national power in competition against China (and possibly other up-and-coming nations as well).

The Germans are not being kicked out just because of the budget thing, they're being kicked out because they're not adding their own power to American power in sufficient amounts. It's nothing so banal as individual dollars to individual defense contractors.

The budget thing is a symptom of the underlying contradictions in NATO as it stands and the changing global balance of power (and the US's uncertain strategic approach towards it), and while I lack the background to do a rigorous and thorough examination of the issue, I think it's interesting to think through different perspectives.

Europe has 500 million people; Turkey has 80 million; Pakistan 300 million; Indonesia 300 million, India 1.5 billion.

Europe is about a sixth of global GDP, and is a smaller economy than China or the USA, and growth has been anemic, and as you note it is not a single economy. It is not as big a fish as it used to be, and it's not a single fish even though it might try.