I mean, I agree that the 2% target is probably aggressive, but it was the number agreed to by NATO members as the guideline. It doesn't come from nowhere.I feel like this should be the real conversation, not the bullshit, all distracting 2%.
I mean, I agree that the 2% target is probably aggressive, but it was the number agreed to by NATO members as the guideline. It doesn't come from nowhere.I feel like this should be the real conversation, not the bullshit, all distracting 2%.
I mean, I agree that the 2% target is probably aggressive, but it was the number agreed to by NATO members as the guideline. It doesn't come from nowhere.
Okay then Germany can ask for these American bases to be dismantled. Further more I find the metric flawed. You should look to how effective it is spend and how effective that army is. Otherwise you end up with paper tigers and no actual strength or efficiency.German public will hate this but I too think it is necessary and overdue.
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.
I mean, I agree that the 2% target is probably aggressive, but it was the number agreed to by NATO members as the guideline. It doesn't come from nowhere.
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.
Well the same can be said for any number of government policies. The point is if 2% is too high a number, NATO should adjust their guidelines. In the meantime, asking allies to honor the commitments they agreed to isn't outlandish.It comes from the collective cloaca of a number of generals and defence ministers who would (of course) love to have bigger budgets.
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.
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.
Because we're fucking cheap! What are you going to do about it, huh?! Oh, right..What the fuck is wrong with Germany, why are they the ones not honoring the contracts of all countries.
Exactly. It's about time to be honest.Maybe the US can finally get some of those sweet social programs that the Euros have if we aren't subsidizing their military. Same with the UK really.
Part of me doubts that Trump wants an empowered Europe.
It is not going to happen because that random 2% is used as a political tool.Well the same can be said for any number of government policies. The point is if 2% is too high a number, NATO should adjust their guidelines. In the meantime, asking allies to honor the commitments they agreed to isn't outlandish.
Of course I don't think Trump has Europe's best interests in heart, but I agreed with Obama when his administration made the same point.
Despite its conceptual flaws, the 2 percent metric will remain the tool of choice in the debate over military spending in NATO. A smarter yardstick would produce a more sophisticated picture of reality but would not have the same political impact.
The real debate would focus less on spending and more on the widening transatlantic divide over security in Europe. The question of who will guarantee Europe's security in light of global strategic shifts remains unanswered.
Europe will be forced to step up its defense capabilities in the future if it wants to deal with the myriad threats in its neighborhood. This includes more and smarter defense spending, more defense cooperation, more shared threat assessments, and more leadership by hitherto reluctant nations.
As of 2017, it's not a requirement. It's a long term goal. And it was clear from the get go that many countries wouldn't be able to met it. Because it's political.The members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) pledged in 2014 to increase their defense spending to 2 percent of their gross domestic products by 2024.
Portugal is broke as a joke. Demanding anything from them would be in poor form at this point.Why? By that token, Portugal could just chill at the Atlantic coast with 4 buffer states between them and Russia while Lithuania would be sweating to acquire their first few tanks.
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.
What the fuck is wrong with Germany, why are they the ones not honoring the contracts of all countries.
1) Russia bought new stuff throughout the last decades because the Soviet stuff is old as hell, one needs money to keep that stuff going so it is logical to compare military spending:EU member states spent a total amount of 203.143 billion on defence in 2015. Russia $54 billion and the $US 620 billion.
What Russia has over a US less NATO is pure manpower, but i guess lots of Germans would be ready to fight if Russia ever invaded their soil...
2) You as a German should know that Germany is denied invading other countries.
They did so in Syria, without a UN resolution. This is against Law. And don't tell me that pointing lasers at targets for US drones is not engaging in war.
My initial point was that the US has , through their military spending, created a word where they can expect EU countries to join their proxy wars - with UN approval or not.
They take the bill, they call the shots. Sharing the bill while still wanting to call the shots is not gonna happen.
Give me a break. Just because Cheeto Man is scared his Golden Showers VHS will be leaked doesn't mean the US is a "borderline hostile nation" towards our NATO allies or that we wouldn't back them up in a time of war. We'd have Trump's head if he refused to defend a NATO ally against Russia. I'm sure some Europeans would love for the US to be an enemy in order to validate their views about us, but it's time to dial back the hyperbole and get more in touch with reality.
Fuck the US and create an european army.
Maybe the US can finally get some of those sweet social programs that the Euros have if we aren't subsidizing their military. Same with the UK really.
Exactly. It's about time to be honest.
Japan actually spends a pretty large amount on its military. 7th in the world.Germany/Japan were pushed away from military spending after WWII. For obvious reasons.
That's why he's pushing for it. The USA lobbies want to sell more of those flying coffins named jsf. This is the way he's giving in to those lobbies.I think it would be wise for the EU to up their defense spending at this point. US cant be relied upon. If I were them, I wouldn't be giving that increased spending to American companies though if it were at all possible.
Pretty much. Let's see how they project power if they don't have bases all over europe.Fuck the US and create an european army.
Germany is one place behind themJapan actually spends a pretty large amount on its military. 7th in the world.
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.
I'm not sure if you guys are serious. This is just a talking point, do you really think a Republican-led Congress will invest the money for social programs? The US is still upping their defense spending.
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.
Speaking as a Canadian, I'd very much like to see an increase in our military budget
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.
Again, it's not a current requirement.Just search how many countries actually meet that requirement and note how few European countries do. .
That is precisely the point. The nation cannot afford it at the moment and making ugly faces at them because they are not doling out that 2% (which they don't have to yet) would be silly.If Spain needs to decide between pensions and military, then Spain has major issues with its economy. You cannot neglect one aspect because you kick the can down the road and exlect others to clean it up.
they reap massive benefits from this.No lies detected. The US spends an obscene amount of money and manpower defending the entire Western world, it's only fair the other countries in the Alliance pull their own weight.
NATO is woefully under prepared for Russia.
What I was responding to was the idea that if Europe increases the military spending while the US decreases, we would lose influence and somehow this is a bad. Why would it be bad for the US to spend less, Europe to spend more, but remain allies?
Russia has a shit ton of nukes. No amount of preparation is enough for nuclear war.
Does anyone really think that a war between Russia and the West would go any classical way with soldiers and shit? Fuck no.
Nukes would be launched. The end.
Thanks for the insight.It is not going to happen because that random 2% is used as a political tool.
From Carnegie: The Politics of 2 Percent: NATO and the Security Vacuum in Europe
And for the folks coming in outraged because OMG THAT 2%, FREELOADERS!
As of 2017, it's not a requirement. It's a long term goal. And it was clear from the get go that many countries wouldn't be able to met it. Because it's political.
Portugal is broke as a joke. Demanding anything from them would be in poor form at this point.
Portugal's goal should be to achieve nearly full military integration with Spain (which is also broke as a joke) to provide a mix of land and naval expertise with Spain providing force projection through the Med.
Why?
Who wants to attack Canada?
Thats fine if the canadian gov feels that way. But if thats the case then they need to shut their mouths when it comes to trying to get a seat on the UN security council and making empty threats to russia in regards to ukraine. Put up or shut up.Eh I'm sure the .99% we spend in Canada is enough for our needs. That 2% magic number is rubbish.
Thats fine if the canadian gov feels that way. But if thats the case then they need to shut their mouths when it comes to trying to get a seat on the UN security council and making empty threats to russia in regards to ukraine. Put up or shut up.
Dont need a guidline to see that the canadian navy is just a couple of tugboats.Because they're not adhering to a requirement that isn't one? It's stunning how many people don't seem to get what a guideline is.