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.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mattis issues new ultimatum to NATO allies on defense spending
- Thread starter Phantast2k
- Start date
- Status
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
It comes from the collective cloaca of a number of generals and defence ministers who would (of course) love to have bigger budgets.
It may have been agreed, but it doesn't make a lot of sense and everybody knows that. Which is a very NATO kind of thing.
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.
Ding fucking ding.
This administration, regardless of previous calls, are in no position to slam ultimatums down when they are having a love affair with russia. And the president literally says "we should be friends with russia, and I hope putin is my best friend."
If anything, such a friendship would lead to a reduction in threats from russia. But since we all know full well the USA is getting played, just like when Russia hacked our election, Russia is going to move where it wants and how it wants. This all won't be traditional warfare either, so stop pretending it's gonna be some sky battle. They had regime change done in the USA without firing any rounds.
Just a few people poisoned. And let's say EU does cave and pay up. The day Russia invades, all of a sudden their computer systems administration passwords change to Russian ones.
Muffin1611
Banned
It doesn't come from nowhere, but the reason it's a guideline and not a requirement is the reason the US shouldn't try to enforce it. Every member meeting the 2% is neither feasible or needed.
Hari Seldon
Member
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?
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.
SymbiantXenos
Member
I agree. Countries shouldn't rely on free defence. Every NATO member should hit 2%
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.
Phantast2k
Member
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.
Provisions could be made for countries in bad economic state, but risk assessment should have nothing to do with it. Or rather: risk assessment should be made for all NATO countries equally and then the threshold could be lowered if circumstances allow it.
In order to not spend that money mindlessly we should merge our defense projects in Europe. France is especially idiotic in that regard with their Rafale and Leclerc. I'm not saying they should be buying Leopards and Eurofighters. I'm saying that, for instance, we should either produce one fighter generation together or adopt 2,3 different versions together.
(Edit: I picked France because pretty much no one is buying their Rafales and Leclercs - no disrespect)
Because we're fucking cheap! What are you going to do about it, huh?! Oh, right..
But actually it's because we have a ton of US (and previously had UK & France) military stationed here. Of course it's been pretty much a free ride since 1991.
/off for today
Epsilon-delta
Banned
Exactly. It's about time to be honest.
Considering he thinks like a CEO of a multinational called the USA, he sees Europe, and by extension the EU, as its economic competitor, that needs to be taken down, same with China. So everything he does policywise will be with that in mind.
Basically with him in power, the USA is no ally of ours anymore.
Can Crusher
Banned
Fuck the US and create an european army.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
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.
sankt-Antonio
:^)--?-<
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.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Because we became pacifists and non-interventionists. Many Germans actively dislike the military.
Its completely different than in the US. Its not something that people respect.
The Bundeswehr actually has ongoing PR campaigns to improve the image of service.
From what I can tell they're not very effective because all I see is people ridiculing them.
Germans don't like the military, they don't like members of the military and they don't like the thought of having weaponry.
Unless Germany is allowed to declare humanitarian equipment or research as defense budget its absolutely impossible that Germany can spend 2% of its GDP on defense.
We'd had to buy more equipment than we could possibly even use, and there is no way that they can convince more people to join the military. Even if they would reintroduce mandatory service people would just sue them to hell and back to get out of it.
It also would be political suicide for whoever introduces it.
Unless the US wants us to buy 1000 new jets even though theres only 50 guys who can fly one...
Germany is just not able to purposefully spend 2% of its GDP on defense.
Pagusas
Elden Member
It would be kinda nice if we (the US) didnt have to call the shots and could for once avoid taking the blame for all the problems of the world. Maybe its not a bad idea for EU to deal with some things on their own.
Palette Swap
Member
It's a bit disquieting how a dumb talking point about one parameter of an alliance is met with so much sympathy.
I hope it's just a more demagogic delivery of the usual demand. Then again, I don't know how we'll view America a couple of years from now, at the current rate, but I'd rather we weren't their ally or give them any aid the next time they decide to invade a country to take oil, kill brown people and create decades of problems.
I hope it's just a more demagogic delivery of the usual demand. Then again, I don't know how we'll view America a couple of years from now, at the current rate, but I'd rather we weren't their ally or give them any aid the next time they decide to invade a country to take oil, kill brown people and create decades of problems.
You can say that all you want but actions speak louders than whatever heartfelt speech will ever do.
The current US administration IS sending an hostile ambassador to represent their interest to the EU.
If that isn't a clear message that they care little about EU countries interest, what is?
Regardless the EU shouldn't rely on other outside countries to handle such a vital issue anyway.
team Orange being at the head of NATO is just an opportunity, they should have done that years ago anyway regardless who leads the USA.
And in the event that the US fails its EU allies, the president would be toast but that is certainly not going to make the failed EU allies better in any way at all.
Trump is jailed? nice!
That's going to make the invasion force go away?
They would be paying more than if they just agreed to meet the guidelines.
I can't disagree with this, do your part Europe.
Muffin1611
Banned
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.
Japan actually spends a pretty large amount on its military. 7th in the world.
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.
Pretty much. Let's see how they project power if they don't have bases all over europe.
Germany is one place behind them
superdeluxe
Member
NATO is woefully under prepared for Russia.
Sickboy007
Member
Ideally the EU should have its own defence policy, but that train is long gone I fear.
Hari Seldon
Member
Like I said before, the US cannot reduce their military spending in some future non-Trump administration without altering the mission. The mission of the US military is to honor NATO, and defend South Korea. If Europe started spending 2% right this minute, it would still take years and years before that money was reflected as real power on the ground.
Napalm_Frank
Member
I agree with the sentiment that it's not the US's job to pick up the slack for european defense but at the same time if EU joint defense co-operation will deepen there isn't really much need to spend more. Russian military is a paper tiger if it came against any real joint euro defense.
2% GDP is primarily what every major or even non major developed country in the world typically spends. Is it required for all countries? No. Some countries like Israel whcih requires a qualitative edge spend upto 5-6% on GDP. But when you agree to a certain limit, and countries like France and Germany and Italy, the world's major economic powers don't spend even 2% it is an issue. Just search how many countries actually meet that requirement and note how few European countries do. 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.
methane47
Member
Auto_aim1
MeisaMcCaffrey
Don't tell us what to do or we will create an EU army is pretty silly thing to say. Everyone agreed to 2% of gdp spending on NATO and only 5 members actually meet the requirements. Maybe it should be reduced to 1.5% but it's extremely unfair to expect US to do all the heavy lifting. During the Libyan situation the UK and France ran out of ammo and the US bailed them out. What are they gonna do against Russia?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...tions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...tions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html
The UK is still the most much more anti-Russian than France and Germany.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Again, it's not a current requirement.
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.
show me your skeleton
Member
they reap massive benefits from this.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
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.
The NATO countries are some of the richest in the world. Spending 2% of their GDP on defense seems excessive, and what exactly qualifies as defense anyway? Spending money on healthcare defends us from diseases, which seem to kill more people than terrorists. Can't we just amend the terms of the treaty so the commitment changes to 0.5% of GDP? That would still mean enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world ten times over
That would be scenario three. Europe wouldn't have as much use for the US anymore and could turn from a friend to a rival.
I am actually speaking as a European, by the way, and one who wouldn't mind Europe growing more independent at that. I'm just pointing out that there could be very clear downsides for the US in that scenario, though. The US wants influence over Europe for a lot of reasons and not all of them are completely benign.
Nukes wouldn't be launched. Nukes are a last-resort trump to be played when your capital is about to be obliterated or your population is involved in a genocidal zero-sum war.
Why would Russia launch nukes when it can simply roll tanks down the streets of Berlin?
sechsterangriff
Member
There's no meaning in having a huge budget if it isn't spent efficiently. I wouldn't mind that 2% figure if it there was minimal waste. More importantly would be having an effective yearly measurement and evaluation on how that budget was spent.
People tend to have pride in their military so I believe even if they're from broke countries (such as Portugal and Spain) there would be support for increasing military spending if they find it justifiable.
People tend to have pride in their military so I believe even if they're from broke countries (such as Portugal and Spain) there would be support for increasing military spending if they find it justifiable.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Thanks for the insight.
The Russians are very interested in claiming Canadian Arctic territory. Canada is perhaps the most aggressive, besides the Russians, in defending its territorial stakes in the Arctic Circle, even to the chagrin of the United States at times.
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.
Muffin1611
Banned
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.
Dont need a guidline to see that the canadian navy is just a couple of tugboats.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked