Support NeoGAF

[Shiggy]

Germany’s foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, said it was neither “reachable nor desirable” for Germany to spend the agreed Nato target of 2% of member states’ economic output on defense. Nato allies have until 2024 to do that.

“Two per cent would mean military expenses of some €70bn [$75bn]. I don’t know any German politician who would claim that is reachable nor desirable,” Gabriel told the first meeting of Nato foreign ministers attended by Tillerson.

“The United States will realise it is better to talk about better spending instead of more spending,” he said, noting that humanitarian, development and economic aid to stabilise countries and regions should also count.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/31/rex-tillerson-nato-spending-germany



German media obviously goes more into depth.

Gabriel even denies that there is the cited 2% goal. "The resolutions of NATO do not know an apodictic two-percent goal." In 2014, it was merely agreed to "develop in this direction". There are "different interpretations" among the NATO members in this regard, Gabriel said. But Gabriel also said that there was a simple way of knowing what was decided at the Wales summit: "Read what was decided."

Gabriel described it as an "absurd idea" that Germany would soon be spending € 70 billion a year on defense. The French army budget was about 40 billion, and it contained an expensive nuclear arsenal. "I do not know where to put all the aircraft carriers we need to buy to invest 70 billion euros a year in the Bundeswehr," Gabriel said.

Germany reported a "high double-digit bill for refugees coming from countries where military intervention failed." This was due to the fact that "there was not sufficient support for political, humanitarian and economic development or social stability". The implied message: Germany pays billions to clean up behind the US and its failed military interventions.

An increase in the deficit budget at the expense of crisis prevention and humanitarian aid, as the US government is currently planning, will "certainly not exist in Germany," Gabriel stressed. At the meeting with Tillerson and the other ministers he said "in the clear clarity, so that nobody could misunderstand".

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...rex-tillerson-die-gefolgschaft-a-1141408.html

 

[Ogodei]

"humanitarian and development aid? That's not killing brown people, how does that count?"

-Trump

 

[ClosingADoor]

Germany and other EU countries do need to spent a bit more on defense, but the 2% is not necessary for all. To reach it on paper, just put some of those refugee programs and stuff under your defense budget I guess.

 

[TemplaerDude]

It's hilarious these bloody Americans running around telling everyone how to run their fucking budget when their country is practically falling apart around them.

 

[Zeus Molecules]

Germany and other EU countries do need to spent a bit more on defense, but the 2% is not necessary for all. To reach it on paper, just put some of those refugee programs and stuff under your defense budget I guess.

Agreed they should spend more but arguably there should be an itemized list at least initially of what cost they are covering

 

[Netherscourge]

Germany pays billions to clean up behind the US and its failed military interventions.

Damn, that's savage. And true.

 

[Muffin1611]

Inb4 someone in this thread claims the 2% guideline should be enforced.

 

[pa22word]

Ironic a euro nation would throw shade over Iraq considering a good portion of the refugees coming in are also from Libya, which went south fast largely due to worthless allies in Europe starting a war they didn't have the money nor political capital to fight then expecting the us to clean up for their stupid mess. A stupid mess that probably wouldn't have been as bad had euro allies been spending properly on defense and has the infrastructure to properly fight said war.

 

[orochi91]

The implied message: Germany pays billions to clean up behind the US and its failed military interventions.

I wish Merkel would explicitly/publicly put the US on blast for those failed interventions.

 

[Electric Eye]

It's hilarious these bloody Americans running around telling everyone how to run their fucking budget when their country is practically falling apart around them.

Trump came out swinging thinking he was going to bully everyone into doing it his way. You look at his administration now and it's in no position to tell anyone what to do. Sad.

 

[Shiggy]

Germany and other EU countries do need to spent a bit more on defense, but the 2% is not necessary for all. To reach it on paper, just put some of those refugee programs and stuff under your defense budget I guess.

That's what Germany is arguing for but the US government doesn't care about it, so they don't want to make that count.

 

[jelly]

US "Please buy more stuff from our military machine"

 

[Roude Leiw]

Ironic a euro nation would throw shade over Iraq considering a good portion of the refugees coming in are also from Libya, which went south fast largely due to worthless allies in Europe starting a war they didn't have the money nor political capital to fight then expecting the us to clean up for their stupid mess. A stupid mess that probably wouldn't have been as bad had euro allies been spending properly on defense and has the infrastructure to properly fight said war.

Germany had nothing to do with Libya.

 

[PJV3]

We could spend it on something useful instead.

 

[pa22word]

Germany had nothing to do with Libya.

The point was the refugee problem isn't just due to us interventions. Europe has its fair share of both historic and recent history of blame to go around for why its neighborhood is in such shambles.

 

[PdotMichael]

Germany doesn't own any oversea territories, so a large navy would be some bullshit.
A 70 billion budget would mean to spend is mainly in airforce and army, it would be even crazier.

With that budget Germany wouldn't stop at Stalingrad this time.

 

[ClosingADoor]

That's what Germany is arguing for but the US government doesn't care about it, so they don't want to make that count.

Then we also shouldn't count most of the US budget anyway, since NATO has nothing to do with their activities in Asia and other regions. Wonder if the US reaches that 2% if we just calculate their European budget.

 

[Kite]

I don't give a fuck if Germany doesn't spend 2% GDP or whatever, but don't make promises then talk shit when you back out.

 

[Shiggy]

I don't give a fuck if Germany doesn't spend 2% GDP or whatever, but don't make promises then talk shit when you back out.

But Gabriel also said that there was a simple way of knowing what was decided at the Wales summit: "Read what was decided."

And Gabriel is actually right:

Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
- halt any decline in defence expenditure;
- aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
- aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.

http://www.nato.int/cps/de/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm

 

[Muffin1611]

I don't give a fuck if Germany doesn't spend 2% GDP or whatever, but don't make promises then talk shit when you back out.

There wasn't a promise like that.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

In 2014, it was merely agreed to "develop in this direction".

So are they spending more money on defense spending? Or is it one of those deals where it is so far in the future the politicians will be out of office by the time they are on the hook for it?

 

[Jacob]

"humanitarian and development aid? That's not killing brown people, how does that count?"

-Trump

This isn't a Trump issue. The Obama Administration was already urging NATO members to step up their defense spending (not unreasonably so for a military alliance IMO).

 

[Karsticles]

I wish Merkel would explicitly/publicly put the US on blast for those failed interventions.

Trump already did - one of his major early campaign messages was the failed Iraq War.

 

[ClosingADoor]

So are they spending more money on defense spending? Or is it one of those deals where it is so far in the future the politicians will be out of office by the time they are on the hook for it?

They are increasing it already, just not to this level.

 

[shintoki]

Should EU spend more? Yes
Should the US spend less? Yes
Should it be 2%? Hell no, I think most people pegged it at 1% if that.

 

[Joni]

Should EU spend more? Yes

Why? Which wars do we need to fight that we don't have enough money for? Especially when the one target Europe would have to worry about is cozying up two non European NATO allies.

 

[Lagamorph]

If you don't want to spend the 2% then that's fine.
But don't commit to spending 2% first and only then saying you don't want to.

 

[sechsterangriff]

Rather than a blind increase in budget, my perception is that there needs to be a more focused and effective spending. It would be great if there was a sort of audit body/department in NATO responsible for evaluating spending and outlining some recommendations in terms of where funds should be going in accordance to the strategic needs of the organization as a whole.

 

[pa22word]

This isn't a Trump issue. The Obama Administration was already urging NATO members to step up their defense spending (not unreasonably so for a military alliance IMO).

Yep. One of the central tenants of the pivot was pushing Europe to put on its big boy pants and take a larger share in dealing with its business. Trump is being much more heavy handed about it, but it's not exactly something that just came out of the blue. Hell Obama publicly fucking trashed France and scolded the British over Libya specifically over this exact reason.

 

[PdotMichael]

Yep. One of the central tenants of the pivot was pushing Europe to put on its big boy pants and take a larger share in dealing with its business. Trump is being much more heavy handed about it, but it's not exactly something that just came out of the blue. Hell Obama publicly fucking trashed France and scolded the British over Libya specifically over this exact reason.

Libya is not a NATO topic.

NATO is nothing more than a defensive treaty to protect mainland territories of its members around the Nothern Atlantic.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Why? Which wars do we need to fight that we don't have enough money for? Especially when the one target Europe would have to worry about is cozying up two non European NATO allies.

Because not all European countries have their military in order. Some even run out of helmets and bullets at the moment, with just some small missions around the world. That should be fixed.

Next to that, deterrence for Russia which seems like it is needed still.

Libya is not a NATO topic.

NATO was leading the mission there.

 

[Muffin1611]

If you don't want to spend the 2% then that's fine.
But don't commit to spending 2% first and only then saying you don't want to.

They didn't commit to it.

How hard is it to read the first page of a thread, this comes up in every single damn thread about the 2% issue.

 

[Shiggy]

They didn't commit to it.

How hard is it to read the first page of a thread, this comes up in every single damn thread about the 2% issue.

Maybe he's like Trump

Well, you know, I love to read. Actually, I’m looking at a book, I’m reading a book, I’m trying to get started. Every time I do about a half a page, I get a phone call that there’s some emergency, this or that.

 

[PdotMichael]

NATO was leading the mission there.

That are two different things.

No NATO member is bound to participate on such things, while a direct attack against a NATO member must be seen as an attack of its own territory.

 

[Dude Abides]

"Aim to move toward within a decade" is an aspiration, not a commitment. Kind of like everything Trump promised to do but will not do.

Gabriel is wrong about one thing though:

The United States will realise it is better to talk about better spending instead of more spending.

We will never realize this.

 

[kmag]

It's next to impossible for Germany to reach the 2% of GDP in the near term without a massive redesign of the whole purpose of their military which is constitutionally limited to a defensive posture (i.e limited force projection)

As has been said they don't need a large navy has they have nowhere to sail it to. They've got plenty of the sort of ships and subs to carry out their defined Nato role.

They've got a tender out for a Tornado fighter bomber replacement with stealth capability, but they're aiming for a pan European project for a custom airframe rather than buying F35's which I imagine is most of the source of American ire.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

That's what Germany is arguing for but the US government doesn't care about it, so they don't want to make that count.

The US isn't the one to decide what counts and what doesn't.

 

[Joni]

Because not all European countries have their military in order. Some even run out of helmets and bullets at the moment, with just some small missions around the world. That should be fixed.

Next to that, deterrence for Russia which seems like it is needed still.

That doesn't really explain the why. Which wars do we need to fight, which countries should we invade? As for deterrence from Russia, that won't be achieved by pumping more money into the NATO with Turkey and the USA in their current state. Russia is also easier to hurt by economic sanctions while military just motivates their people.

 

[Faddy]

It's next to impossible for Germany to reach the 2% of GDP in the near term without a massive redesign of the whole purpose of their military which is constitutionally limited to a defensive posture (i.e limited force projection)

As has been said they don't need a large navy has they have nowhere to sail it to. They've got plenty of the sort of ships and subs to carry out their defined Nato role.

They've got a tender out for a Tornado fighter bomber replacement with stealth capability, but they're aiming for a pan European project for a custom airframe rather than buying F35's which I imagine is most of the source of American ire.

Just think how much lower defence spending in Germany would be if pan-European projects like Eurofighter were on time and on budget.

If they are going to buy boon-dongle bombers they might as well be European boon-dongles. And it is understandable when even Trump has criticised the F35 for being a waste of money.

 

[ClosingADoor]

That doesn't really explain the why. Which wars do we need to fight, which countries should we invade? As for deterrence from Russia, that won't be achieved by pumping more money into the NATO with Turkey and the USA in their current state. Russia is also easier to hurt by economic sanctions while military just motivates their people.

The lack of defense budget explains why those countries don't spent enough on just basic military stuff, yes.

Military isn't just used for invading. There are a ton of missions going on around the world for peacekeeping for example or to fight terrorist groups.

Your argument that we have troubles with Turkey and the USA actually tells me we need more defense spending, since those things point to an unstable world.

 

[Pandora012]

What percent is the US at?

 

[kmag]

Germany does need to modernise, and I'd argue to increase it's special forces and light force projection capabilities (i.e better ability to supply and support peacekeeping/light expeditionary forces outside of Continental europe) but I don't see how they could get an effective 2% of GDP given their constitutional limits on manpower and full force projection.

Maybe a missile shield?

You're talking about a country with a $1 trillion more in GDP than the UK. Unless it starts buying nuclear powered subs and nuclear powered aircraft carriers then I'm not sure what big ticket items they could go for.

 

[purdobol]

What percent is the US at?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending-countries/

Last year numbers. Don't know how accurate though. USA 3.62% GDP.

 

[Goldmund]

These 2% target threads are always a good reminder that Trump winning the presidency isn't really that inexplicable. A reliable portion of the contributions will gladly ignore all historical and political context because it's easier to see a number, note that it's smaller than the expected number and conclude that this must be unreasonable. Everyone agreed, after all, and whatever has been said in the past is irrevocable, you can't put it into perspective anymore, you can't both defer to a group to ensure its cohesion and be critical of the general validity of its measures. It's the same hyperliteral nonsense that inspires the worst Evangelical theology. "It's a 2, 2 comes after 1, basically the smallest number, can't be that much to go to 2 if you're already past 1?!" It doesn't matter what these numbers mean, what they represent.

 

[Joni]

The lack of defense budget explains why those countries don't spent enough on just basic military stuff, yes.

Military isn't just used for invading. There are a ton of missions going on around the world for peacekeeping for example or to fight terrorist groups.

Your argument that we have troubles with Turkey and the USA actually tells me we need more defense spending, since those things point to an unstable world.

THe United States has 68 soldiers in United Nations peacekeeping missions. Italy has 1100, France 880, Spain 614, Germany and Netherlands 400, ... As for more defence speeding because of Turkey and the USA, then we need different kinds of investments. Aka defensive.

 

[PdotMichael]

These 2% target threads are always a good reminder that Trump winning the presidency isn't really that inexplicable. A reliable portion of the contributions will gladly ignore all historical and political context because it's easier to see a number, note that it's smaller than the expected number and conclude that this must be unreasonable. Everyone agreed, after all, and whatever has been said in the past is irrevocable, you can't put it into perspective anymore, you can't both defer to a group to ensure its cohesion and be critical of the general validity of its measures. It's the same hyperliteral nonsense that inspires the worst Evangelical theology. "It's a 2, 2 comes after 1, basically the smallest number, can't be that much to go to 2 if you're already past 1?!" It doesn't matter what these numbers mean, what they represent.

More like just do a we the USA vs. whatever nation narrative and even the liberal hell NeoGAF eats it up. I guess it's a culture thing.

 

[KillerMan91]

The point was the refugee problem isn't just due to us interventions. Europe has its fair share of both historic and recent history of blame to go around for why its neighborhood is in such shambles.

Most of Europe has pretty much nothing to do why middle east currently is in shambles. Russia and UK yes but Russia is lead by mad man that doesn't care and UK has always tried their best to sweep their colonial history under the carpet. It's pretty hilarious and sad how three countries that have meddled most in middle east during last 100 years (UK, Russia and US) are trying their best to avoid responsibility now during the refugee crisis. I mean fricking sweden has taken more refugees than UK. Ridiculous.

 

[Pandora012]

THe United States has 68 soldiers in United Nations peacekeeping missions. Italy has 1100, France 880, Spain 614, Germany and Netherlands 400, ... As for more defence speeding because of Turkey and the USA, then we need different kinds of investments. Aka defensive.

I guess on the plus side the US, pays almost 30% of the UN budget. Though probably not so much now that Mr. Orange is President.

Edit: Looks like the 30% is the peacekeeping. And 20% for the UN budget.

 

[Gattsu25]

The implied message: Germany pays billions to clean up behind the US and its failed military interventions.

Got. Damn.

 

[Joni]

I guess on the plus side the US, pays almost 30% of the UN budget. Though probably not so much now that Mr. Orange is President.

Strangely, the United States on itself also owns 80% of all the countries' debts to the UN. It indeed pays 22% of the bill in return for its veto power.