• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matt

Member
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.
 

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
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.

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.
 

Dehnus

Member
German public will hate this but I too think it is necessary and overdue.
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.
 

commedieu

Banned
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.

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.
 
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.

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
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.

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?
 

Matt

Member
It comes from the collective cloaca of a number of generals and defence ministers who would (of course) love to have bigger budgets.
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.
 

Piggus

Member
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.

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.
 
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.

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)

What the fuck is wrong with Germany, why are they the ones not honoring the contracts of all countries.
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
 

-MB-

Member
Part of me doubts that Trump wants an empowered Europe.

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.
 

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
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.
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

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.

And for the folks coming in outraged because OMG THAT 2%, FREELOADERS!

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.
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.

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.
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) 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.

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.
 
What the fuck is wrong with Germany, why are they the ones not honoring the contracts of all countries.

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.
 

Xando

Member
I agree we should spend more and further integrate into the EU.
Once this is done we should tell Trump and his puppets to fuck off.
Trump is turning America hostile towards us and we don't let Russia have bases in our territory.
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
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.

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.
 
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.
 

Mael

Member
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.

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?
 
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.

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.
 

nubbe

Member
I'm fine with the EU shutting down all american military bases and forming its own military.

American politics is like a cancer now and need to be cut out
 

Dehnus

Member
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.
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.
 
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 is woefully under prepared for Russia.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
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.

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.
 
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.
 

Madness

Member
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.

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.
 

Tugatrix

Member
Well yeah and nope at the same time, Europe need to boost his defenses, the Russian bear is getting balsy and the US well what's more to say. But at the same time, I don't necessary feel that most european armies are defenseless and underbudget.
 

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
 

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Just search how many countries actually meet that requirement and note how few European countries do. .
Again, it's not a current requirement.


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.
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.
 
NATO is woefully under prepared for Russia.

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.
 

typist

Member
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
 

Nivash

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?

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.
 

trembli0s

Member
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.

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?
 
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.
 
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.
Thanks for the insight.
 

trembli0s

Member
Why?

Who wants to attack Canada?

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.
 

99Luffy

Banned
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.
 
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.

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.
 

Xando

Member
I'm not sure why Germany & France aren't just create a joint nuke program, develope ICBMs, point them to moscow (or washington), create a QRF and be done with it.

It's not like any 21st century war will be fought with thousands of tanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom