NATO defence spending

[zen]

If we're asking the question, what should European states do to enhance their defences. Then the answer must be to rely less on others and source their capacity to provide such systems as they deem fit for their needs. From their own industry and source the resources from where outside Powers cannot easily interfere.

 

[_Del_]

it's not an attitude which is going to disappear just because Europe starts contributing its fair share on defence spending. Which, as mentioned elsewhere, it definitely should

Great, they should do that instead of attacking everyone that mentions they haven't been and should.

From their own industry and source the resources from where outside Powers cannot easily interfere.

Even better. Both EU and the US will ultimately be happier when this actually occurs.

 

[GTX]

One thing I find ironic is that if Europe all of a sudden started to invest significantly more into Defence (let's say they strove for the 5% of GDP level mentioned) and as part of such started buying a lot more home grown weapon systems, as would be the natural/prudent thing to do, many of those from the USA, including especially their incoming administration, would be complaining that Europe wasn't buying enough from the USA and making all sorts of irrational threats...sigh.

 

[_Del_]

many of those from the USA, including especially their incoming administration, would be complaining that Europe wasn't buying enough from the USA and making all sorts of irrational threats...sigh.

I personally don't care where they buy from, though interoperable systems would be preferable. They would ultimately be happier if they built up their own industries, but clearly the will is not there, so it's far cheaper to buy American.
This isn't really a left-right issue for most Americans either, I don't believe. Obama tried to get the EU to handle Libya, and they couldn't get it together. Was a whole "leading from behind"- catch phrase on the Sunday morning news shows. Italy and France imported most of the Libyan oil, so he told them the EU should take the lead on the world-stage. Germany abstained. Italy finally buckled and allowed their bases to be used by the UK and French.
It's your neighbourhood. You should be capable of cleaning it up without leaning on Americans. Particularly if you are worried about our mercurial politics and resent our influence and "imperialism". Both sides will be happier when Europe decides to lead in Europe.
Saying we've been getting the short-end of the stick on costs for many decades is not an " irrational threat". It's an invitation to make the partnership less one sided.
If it can't be, I personally am comfortable ceding our role on Europe if it isn't a real partnership with defined goals for both sides. Europe resents the US wanting influence in Europe and making "irrational demands" like prioritizing their own sovereignty, and America resents footing the bill disproportionately in those circumstances.

Our main issue is on the other side of Asia. Europe does not see it that way. Vlad has taken years to annex culturally Russian districts in the Ukraine in a proxy war. If he can't steam roll the Ukraine, I'm sure you guys can put up a good fight when and if you decide to.

 

[edwest4]

At the end of the war, England was bankrupt. Rebuilding had to occur. Our remaining Allies were busy recovering. By the end of the 1950s, ICBMs were deployed by the Soviets and United States. England was host to SAC aircraft and would be a staging point should an attack occur against the European mainland. In many ways, this was a rerun of the past. What the Germans couldn't do in the East now fell to the Allies. Fortunately, a great Soviet drive to capture Western Europe did not occur.

The United States was spared a full-scale attack.

National sovereignty remains. Each European country has its own interests, its own identity and unique heritage. Those things are worth preserving and fighting for. Regional differences still exist in England. They should remain. The land on which your people lived and died, and, at times, fought for, must be preserved.

When the Soviets moved out of Eastern Europe, the United States fortified it. Poland got a shipment of U.S. tanks. The Ukraine had visits from U.S. military advisors long ago. A courtship was occurring. Today, the Russian government must be seen as a potent force. One that feels threatened by a pro-West buildup in its back yard. The Ukraine cannot join NATO or anything like it. That was made clear at the start of the war. Russia wants to see the Ukraine declawed. A country that can no longer threaten it. Otherwise, it was feeling hemmed in from all sides. I am not pro-Russian, far from it.

 

[starviking]

Would you say we spend a third of our budget on European defense? Perhaps a fourth? Surely the nuclear deterrent forces count. That's about $40 billion a year according to the CBO. $60 billion if we count the DOE weapon labs which never get accounted to Dept of Defense spending. That's 2/3 of Germany's defense spending without a single conventional weapon or soldier ever going to Europe.

Correct my math here, but if only a tenth of the DOD money we spend ever goes to europe (which is a ridiculous number no one would dare be bold enough to actually support) we still spend more on European spending than Germany's defense budget. I was just told earlier that nations closer to the front line were supposed to be more obligated and those further away were to be less. Is that less true than it was when it was said a day or two ago? Is there some other calculus that demands we spend way more than our European "partners"?

I’m talking about the Non-US NATO spending compared to Non-NATO US spending.

The UK and France also have deterrent spending, but even if it’s rolled into that defense spending chart and the US deterrent and DoE isn’t - you’re changing the US balance from 967,000 million to 1,027,000 million: changing the NATO/US balance from 0.52 to 0.50.

And, as deterrent forces also serve the nation that commissions them - once again, not totally serving NATO.

As for how much the US spends on European defense, a third would not surprise me - putting the NATO/US balance around 1.50.

However, these back-of-the-envelope calculations obscure the key point - US commitments to NATO, and European commitments to NATO have developed forces that can work together well, and are mobile enough to respond to emerging and continuing threats around the world.

NATO ships operate off Yemen, with the Harry S. Truman CSG - but the US forces developed for NATO also operate around the world - a CSG and ARG in Japan and a CSG in the Pacific, currently.

This bickering over NATO expenditures has largely descended into “an answer in search of a question” territory. The answer is “the US is being screwed”, so all the facts that are on the field must be manipulated - or ignored to get that answer.

It’s a perfectly good method of inquiry for a Friday night down at the pub - but for foreign policy it’s downright dangerous.

 

[Arjen]

So if Europe pulled its weight, would US spending on defence decrease?
If so, where would the money go? Tax cuts?
If no, tax cuts anyway?

 

[Arjen]

Russia wants to see the Ukraine declawed.

And hopefully with a Russia-friendly regime in place. As understandable as that is from a Russian viewpoint, recent events have made both less than likely.

 

[GK Dundas]

Actually the Russians have made it abundantly clear the they'd prefer Ukraine to not exist. Ethnic erasure never mind cleansing.

 

[Trident]

And hopefully with a Russia-friendly regime in place. As understandable as that is from a Russian Putin's viewpoint, recent events have made both less than likely.

FTFY. He has manipulated and coopted public opinion in Russia on this issue, but if you take a step back it is not in the interests of country and people to fight this war, in fact it goes very strongly against those interests. This war is being fought over the interest of one man, and one man only, even if he has managed to engineer/extort public support for it.

 

[TsrJoe]

Drifting OT., I guess losing the 'buffer zone' around you and the western backed overthrow of 'friendly' governments, might well have led to reactionary and to us seemingly nonsensical decisions ?

It would be interesting to muse how for example the US. would react having an unfriendly state emerge on their border ? Canada, Mexico, Cuba ?

Is any of this really topics for SP. anyway ? The 'Bar' and 'Alternative' are seemingly becoming refuges of thinly hidden political bias past months

 

[Aubi]

Sure, treat other countries as 'buffer zone'. Nothing can go wrong with that... And when the locals kick their gold toilet-collecting thief of a president out, yeah, that had to be a foreign influence? Why the hell would they do that, right? /s

 

[Arjen]

Is any of this really topics for SP. anyway ?

No.
<edit> and sometimes I can't help myself and wade in anyway

 

[_Del_]

So if Europe pulled its weight, would US spending on defence decrease?
If so, where would the money go? Tax cuts?
If no, tax cuts anyway?

I think defense spending and entitlements will decrease whether "they" like it or not. Either in austerity spending now or in a decade or so as the debt service continues to bloom. We're already spending more on debt service than any other single thing. Wreckless. If we don't fix it, it will be an entirely different conversation like the continental powers and UK have already faced. We won't be able to afford to have complex overseas goals because we will not be able to afford them.
We have to learn to do more with less if we're going to continue. One thing is the procurement process is wildly Byzantine leading to long and expensive development.
Tax cuts? Maybe. If they are offset by tariffs and/or add to the overall revenue. Easier to enforce and collect a tariff than income tax. Combination of both adds to the industrial base which could mean more revenue.
We'll be like Britain when they gave up the large fleets.

 

[martinbayer]

At the end of the war, England was bankrupt. Rebuilding had to occur. Our remaining Allies were busy recovering. By the end of the 1950s, ICBMs were deployed by the Soviets and United States. England was host to SAC aircraft and would be a staging point should an attack occur against the European mainland. In many ways, this was a rerun of the past. What the Germans couldn't do in the East now fell to the Allies. Fortunately, a great Soviet drive to capture Western Europe did not occur.

The United States was spared a full-scale attack.

National sovereignty remains. Each European country has its own interests, its own identity and unique heritage. Those things are worth preserving and fighting for. Regional differences still exist in England. They should remain. The land on which your people lived and died, and, at times, fought for, must be preserved.

When the Soviets moved out of Eastern Europe, the United States fortified it. Poland got a shipment of U.S. tanks. The Ukraine had visits from U.S. military advisors long ago. A courtship was occurring. Today, the Russian government must be seen as a potent force. One that feels threatened by a pro-West buildup in its back yard. The Ukraine cannot join NATO or anything like it. That was made clear at the start of the war. Russia wants to see the Ukraine declawed. A country that can no longer threaten it. Otherwise, it was feeling hemmed in from all sides. I am not pro-Russian, far from it.

A dictatorship feels "threatened" by democracies - huh...

 

[Trident]

A dictatorship feels "threatened" by democracies - huh...

To be fair, democracies have attacked or otherwise interfered with both other democracies and dictatorships in clear violation of international law before.