Frankfurter
Member
There was no such thing as a 2% target when NATO was first created.
Mattis issues new ultimatum to NATO allies on defense spending
- Thread starter Phantast2k
- Start date
- Status
There was no such thing as a 2% target when NATO was first created.
I'd tell nato to fuck off. The EU needs it's own military force to combat usa/russia. Nato is obsolete if the USA is going to let Russia do what it wants.
And it hardly needs to reduce education and health care costs to splurge on a meaningless potent military.
Just because we decided Russia was our #1 enemy and spent all this money to "defend" our western views of capitalism which is really just destabilizing counties and creating refugee problems for the eu, it doesn't mean that others have to play that game. They can defend themselves quite well as it is, and France has nukes.
I'd imagine they are spending billions on refugees. Consider it a fair trade. The world will Unite for a common enemy as it always has. America doesn't need bases all over the world, it will be fine without us.
This was worded to make it seem logical by mattis. It's not. It's something said by a country that spends all of its taxes on a bloated military.
And it hardly needs to reduce education and health care costs to splurge on a meaningless potent military.
Just because we decided Russia was our #1 enemy and spent all this money to "defend" our western views of capitalism which is really just destabilizing counties and creating refugee problems for the eu, it doesn't mean that others have to play that game. They can defend themselves quite well as it is, and France has nukes.
I'd imagine they are spending billions on refugees. Consider it a fair trade. The world will Unite for a common enemy as it always has. America doesn't need bases all over the world, it will be fine without us.
This was worded to make it seem logical by mattis. It's not. It's something said by a country that spends all of its taxes on a bloated military.
Back-In-Black
Banned
This. I may hate Trump's guts but asking NATO countries to spend the minimum 2% of GDP on defense to bolster NATO isn't asking a lot. Stop making America pay for everything. Even Pres. Obama agreed about this.
The US pays for their power projection. They're welcome to spend less... What's that, no? Thought so.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Tell that to borderline broke nations like Portugal and Spain or Iceland for that matter.
There's a reason why the much fabled 2% is not a requirement but a guideline.
Phantast2k
Member
1) You have no idea about the Russian capabilities. And also about EU states' (functional) capabilities with US out of the equation. Comparing defense budgets is also quite funny considering Russia basically inherited the equipment of the largest army in the world.
2) Still not sure what the fuck you are talking about. You'll have to be more specific than that.
DerangedHermit
Member
^^^^^^^^^^^
It's dishonest to even suggest that the US spends on its military primarily on the behalf of its allies though. The US spends on things for their own interests, and these don't necessarily have much to do with what the rest of NATO needs.
Russia does have a huge amount of equipment, but much of it is very old by now, and they don't have the logistical backbone to launch any long range offensives. That's why any of their military activity is confined to countries on their borders and why the only NATO powers that have anything to worry from that direction are the Baltic States.
TatteredHat
Member
Man I wouldn't mind a future where the EU has it's own army, NATO no longer exists, and the rest of the western world isn't pulled into the US's bullshit middle eastern warfare parties because of Article 5.
That's nice and all, but Russia doesn't give a shit how you feel. If you want to avoid another war, you need to be able to deter the threat they pose.
I should note that there was a story on NPR about this a long time ago and a European expert was talking about how NATO members had agreed to 2% but he suspected Trump was gonna be asking for more than the agreed terms.
So, that little memory has me accepting the 2% at face value since it came from a place of criticism towards the US and NPR plays shit pretty fair.
Now, buy our shit please
So, that little memory has me accepting the 2% at face value since it came from a place of criticism towards the US and NPR plays shit pretty fair.
Now, buy our shit please
TatteredHat
Member
If you think my country is at risk of going in to a war with Russia I don't know what to tell you. The main motivator of wars my country has been involved the past 20 years hasn't been Russia, it has been the US. And now they're telling us to build up our military force even more.
Darkangel
Member
I think we need to retool our forces for the Arctic. That's where the future flashpoints will be and Canada has a lot to lose if it can't (literally) hold its ground. The USA has its own arctic claims, so Canada might be on its own when it comes to certain situations.
what
nature boy
Member
typo, countries.
And the US is clearly no longer interested in defending its allies so said allies should take note of it and handle their defense themselves.
Basically.
Mil-spending in the EU is up to the US, oddly enough. If they wouldn't spend so much money on stationing forces here, the EU countries would undoubtedly adjust their spending. And if so, since this would impact multiple countries, EU Defence Force would probable be floated seriously.
And if there would be EUDF, i wonder if we'd have any need for NATO...
makingmusic476
Member
I agree with this in principle, but let's be real, this won't come with a correlating reduction in US defense spending. The right is going to continue pushing to increase that as well.
Arms manufacturers will make out great, though.
Arms manufacturers will make out great, though.
Dreams-Visions
Member
No, 2%. I'm pretty sure the expectation of all members is 2%. And only a few are meeting that goal.
Regardless of team orange, the USA hasn't shown to be a reliable ally in the last few years and has absolutely not deterred hostile nations.
If shit hits the fan the USA will not be there anyway so they shouldn't rely on them at all.
Again, fuck Sarkozy for making France part of NATO again.
What's wrong with following through with the agreement your county signed? The agreement is in place for a reason. Do you think Americans should foot the bill for you?
No, you're supposed to meet the standards decided on in the NATO agreement. 2% is quite a bit lower than what the US spends.
In what way is this anything other than hyperbole?
sleepnaught
Member
Not sure. But a recent Red Flag exercise with F-16s as aggressors vs F-35s had the F-35 with a 15:1 kill ratio.
America pays for their own fucking interests. Asking Spain or Portugal to spend 2% on NATO is completely and utterly fucking insane. The US might as well go ahead and fuck off NATO right now.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
The mercantilization of NATO is almost as stupid as using that famed 2% as a baseline requirement for all allied nations around the world, many of them small or just plain unable to provide that number. And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter at all.
DefenseOne just posted an article on this: Trump's Empty ‘Ultimatum' to NATO.
DefenseOne just posted an article on this: Trump's Empty ‘Ultimatum' to NATO.
TLDR: Europe may need to spend more money, but the 2% is just another bullshit talking point at a time when militaries are looking to become "smart" instead of "big", in some instances focusing on their particular strenghts instead of all-reaching performance.
ChronotriggerJM
Member
Part of me doubts that Trump wants an empowered Europe.
freeofgreed
Member
I'm not talking about the target in that comment, i'm talking about the fear of Germany having the largest army.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
No need to doubt.
Current US leadership is less interested in being allies with its partners than getting better relationship with Russia.
Again why should the EU allies rely on the USA at all when they are proving to be unreliable borderline hostile nation?
Just look at the new ambassador to the EU the USA wants to send.
USA is not interested in what is best for EU countries, that much is clear.
Well, you want to disunite Europe and militarise nations individually. What could go wrong? 😒 Obviously the EU pooling together wouldn't work towards that aim.
Phantast2k
Member
You assume that:
- EU armies (and again, those are the armies we're talking about here) have all new & shiny & functional equipment. They don't.
For instance Poland is supposed to have the biggest tank forces in the EU, right? But have you taken a detailed look at it? Most of it are T-72 variants and old ass Leopard 2A4. You know what Russian ATGMs do to Leopard 2A4s? Why, just ask ISIS: The Battle for Al-Bab: Verifying Euphrates Shield Vehicle Losses - bellingcat
You think our non-stealthy Eurofighters will have a chance against their anti-air systems? Oh wait, no need to worry we'll just drown them with our UAV's. Oh shit, we practically don't have those. Eh, our strategic, high-altitude bombers will take them out. Oh shit, we don't have those. Well, at least we have some cruise missiles. Oh shit, US just turned off GPS, let's switch to Galileo. Oops, not done yet.
- An attack on Europe would somehow require logistical masterstrokes when Russia actually shares one huge landmass with Europe. What exactly do you think they'll be lacking when mounting such an attack? Gas? Pre-packaged food?
It's cool though we can always overpower them manpower-wise. Well, maybe not:
NYCmetsfan
Banned
You don't have any deterrence, France's would be it (and your losing the UK)
The smaller nations I can understand, and the history of Germany and their wariness to be a world military power again I can understand, but the sheer lack of any force projection by any European nation is crazy. Aside from the UK and France, no European country can operate their military in any effective manner outside their borders and even then, the UK and France had issues achieveing air superiority over Libya, troubles with refuelling etc.
Europe has always thumbed their nose at the US over the fact that they have universal healthcare and free tuition, but they have always been subsidized militarily by the US. Granted it is a mutually beneficial agreement, but 2% of GDP for military is still historically low amounts and countries like Italy and Germany definitely need to start spending that. Estonia and Poland contribute their share because they know how valuable NATO is to their defense against a possible resurgent Russia.
I definitely think Germany needs to get their head in the game and up their military spending. As the EU largest economy, they need to be a military power as well, especially in an era where Russia is annexing territories, China is stealing land near reefs and corals, NK developing nuclear weapons.
Europe has always thumbed their nose at the US over the fact that they have universal healthcare and free tuition, but they have always been subsidized militarily by the US. Granted it is a mutually beneficial agreement, but 2% of GDP for military is still historically low amounts and countries like Italy and Germany definitely need to start spending that. Estonia and Poland contribute their share because they know how valuable NATO is to their defense against a possible resurgent Russia.
I definitely think Germany needs to get their head in the game and up their military spending. As the EU largest economy, they need to be a military power as well, especially in an era where Russia is annexing territories, China is stealing land near reefs and corals, NK developing nuclear weapons.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
The 2% rule doesn't make any sense.
NATO should introduce a task force to assess risk and adequate response.
Mindlessly spending 2% of GDP would be a huge waste of resources in 99% of cases.
EU countries should renegotiate that rule and maybe present an EU-wide defense concept. That could be way more efficient than every country doing their own stuff.
NATO should introduce a task force to assess risk and adequate response.
Mindlessly spending 2% of GDP would be a huge waste of resources in 99% of cases.
EU countries should renegotiate that rule and maybe present an EU-wide defense concept. That could be way more efficient than every country doing their own stuff.
Time to build and prepare then.
Not saying it's going to happen in the next 2 years but it's foolish to rely on a fickle ally that has the openly stated goal of dismantling your economy.
OK, I'm going to give you three alternative realities to demonstrate why influence over Europe is of enormous importance to the shape of the US itself.
1) Imagine a world where the US immediately retreated from Europe after WWII and turned isolationist, as it had been before the war. NATO never forms. In 1949, the USSR gets the Bomb. Stalin gives Europe an ultimatum: accept the socialist revolution or perish in nuclear flames. Europe submits. The USSR now stretches from Vladivostok in the east to the English Channel in the west: the greatest empire the world has ever known. The US is cut off from trade with Europe. The US economy collapses. The USSR emerges as the one world superpower, while the US is relegated to a second tier power similar to the Russia of today, with a similar disparity in living standards.
2) Imagine a world where neither the US or the USSR intervenes in Europe after WWII for whatever reason. Within twenty years - just like after WWI - the nations of Europe are at each other's throats again. Except this time, with nukes. Europe is immolated. The world is thrown into a nuclear winter. Half the US population starves to death, the other half envy the dead.
3) Imagine the US electing a Trump-like figure instead of Bill Clinton to replace Bush Sr. The US leaves NATO, citing rising costs and no purpose, and pulls out of Europe. It bullies the EU over trade. US-EU relations break down and never recover. Over the next 40 years, the EU grows ever closer and finally federalises, with a combined economic and military strength that's more than a match even for the US. Except this EU is about as friendly to the US as present day China is and mercilessly competes with the US over world trade and dominance, even going as far as militarising Greenland and forging alliances in South America. The US enters the 2030s with not one rival super power in the shape of China, but two, and with greatly diminished soft power and trade to boot.
Sure. Call this Clancy stuff all you wish and that it's just fantasies. But I can assure you, the US has maintained influence in Europe all these years precisely in order to avoid outcomes like this.
The 2% refers to how much a country should be spending of their own GDP on their own military. It's not about funding NATO or specific NATO operations.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Luxembourg must be thinking where they can store a new a fighter squadron.
Meanwhile, Spain may be pondering what's a bigger priority, if being able to barely pay the already meager pensions or buying a new aircraft carrier.
Hari Seldon
Member
Regardless of the 2% or not, if Putin sends little green men into Poland and the US and UK don't do anything, the EU better have a strategy.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
I feel like this should be the real conversation, not the bullshit, all distracting 2%.
Frankfurter
Member
Can we please get away from this 2% thing? Tons of US spending on its military is not at all targeted at NATO, but is counted anyway, because this guideline is just "2% of GDP".
I do think Germany needs to do more, but the spending actually needs to make sense. Just spending more for the sake of it won't do shit.
Poland will just crush them. Doing that in one of the Baltic countries is the bigger issue imo.
There is no "contract".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked