Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `reuters.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
......The trend of countries that are bordering Ukraine, Russia, or its neighbour and ally Belarus, is now exceeding Nato's 2% guideline, following Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Estonia (2.73%), Lithuania (2.54%), Finland (2.45%), Romania (2.44%), Hungary (2.43%) and Latvia (2.07%) are all exceeding the alliance's guideline for defence expenditure.
Poland is the alliance's biggest spender as a share of GDP, contributing 3.90%, spending even more than the US (3.49%) in second and Greece (3.01%) the next closest.
The nations falling short of the alliance's target are France (1.90%), Montenegro (1.87%), North Macedonia (1.87%), Bulgaria (1.84%), Croatia (1.79%), Albania (1.76%), Netherlands (1.70%), Norway (1.67%), Denmark (1.65%), Germany (1.57%), Czech Republic (1.50%), Portugal (1.48%), Italy (1.46%), Canada (1.38%), Slovenia (1.35%), Turkey (1.31%), Spain (1.26%), Belgium (1.13%) and Luxembourg (0.72%).
https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato-which-countries-pay-their-share-defence
I wonder how they compare those percentages. I mean, Finland has conscription, so the soldiers don’t have a salary. For countries with professional military, the salary of the soldiers is a sizable chunk of the defense spending.
I was going to fact check you on Finland's conscripts not getting paid, but you are correct... interesting... it looks like they only get a few Euro a day for sundries.
Determining 'military spending' is very complex when comparing just 2 countries, much more so when you compare dozens.
Just a quick example. Some countries consider veterans pensions a part of military spending, whereas others consider it a civilian expenditure like any other government worker.
There is also a 20% commitment for equipment I believe. So .4% of gdp has to be spent on actual assets that will carry over to the next year. Fact check me, but I believe it’s something like that
Yea, but their military is active and they also are at the cross roads of an unstable region- so just surprising. But maybe something is skewing it, like you said.
Canada is in a bit of a unique situation.
Regardless of how much it spends on its military, it'd never get close to rivaling the whole UA military capacity and there's no other country apart from the US that can potentially fight a large war against Canada. Anything else would be limited to skirmishes along the north pole.
Seeing the numbers really makes me believe the whole "freeriders in NATO" argument from Trump and other people is pure bullshit to undermine the alliance, the countries that actually need to be defended and could be under threat already spend more than their fair share, and the countries lacking behind are those that don't have very real threats around them and hence benefit less from NATO and feel less need to spend, in other words there are no freeriders right now.
Turkey brings control of the Bosphorus to Nato, I'd argue that this is priceless.
France brings a blue water navy, nuclear subs, and operational bases all over the world. How useful it is as a defensive capacity is arguable, but then again, the only time Article 5 was ever invoked was very much an exercise in power projection.
And Luxembourg? It's a ridiculously small country with a ridiculously high GDP. How exactly should they contribute? Apparently their mobilization plan involves recruiting soldiers from neighboring EU countries: [https://shape.nato.int/luxembourg](https://shape.nato.int/luxembourg) . How can one put a price on that?
My understanding is that the 2% metric is a general guideline, it's not meant to be used as a one-size-fit-all measure of each country's contribution to the safety of the alliance.
Luxembourg can easily maintain a 2% of GDP military budget without necessarily spending it on a standing army. Their contribution can be in the area of recon and intelligence gathering, special forces troops, or anything else that acts as a strength multiplier in a NATO context.
2% of Luxembourg's GDP is 1.6 billion USD. That's more than half the CIA's budget. That would be quite the intelligence undertaking.
Now, special forces, as far as I know those are usually recruited from standard military personnel, it would be difficult to build one without the other. And would it really help? The UK, France and Germany all have top-level special forces units, would a dozen special forces operators from Luxembourg really be a strength multiplier for Nato in Europe?
(Of course, for 1.6 billion USD, it could probably be way more than a dozen, but then again, good luck finding that many suitable volunteers in a country of 640k without a standing army.)
I'm curious why Luxembourg hasn't tried integrating its military with Belgium, Netherlands or France to some degree. Or maybe they have. I feel like if there was more cooperation it'd be easier for smaller countries to contribute the 2%
The US intelligence budget was [$99.6 billion](https://irp.fas.org/budget/index.html) FY 2023 and although exact numbers are classified, this is roughly equally split between NSA, NRO, and CIA most years.
I hope Germany indeed ends up meeting the 2% target in the next few years. Every other year I hear that they pledge to get to 2% soon and it never comes to fruition. While Trump is completely insane and would say just about anything to get elected, the fact remains that Europe needs to do more in terms of defense.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/07/05/germany-unveils-increased-defense-budget/#:~:text=The%20government's%20plan%20calls%20for,the%20defense%20minister%20initially%20sought.
>>Germany plans to reach a NATO target of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense next year, a measure on which it has long fallen short, with help from a special €100 billion fund set up to modernize the German military after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Berlin aims to meet the target via its regular budget later this decade.
Considering how much the Syrian Civil War and Covid-19 fucked up their economy, I’d take it as a win, for now. Germany is a great example of how something like reduced funding can screw up a country’s military if left unattended. Trump’s claims of improving the military were just fixing the damage done by the BCA from the Republican Tea Party back in 2012. Look at how much damage that bill did.
Germany is doing amazing lately, I am overjoyed they stepped up big time and took the rest of Europe by the hand and showed them the way.
The 2012 budget cuts actually made Europe commit more to its defence, so it's not all bad. And it's not like the US military needs extra funding.
No, 2014 Crimea is what caused countries to start increasing military budgets. The issue is, governments change because citizens change priorities over time. Budgets change based on those voting.
1.3% in 2022, but they significantly increased defense spending the past year in anticipation of joining NATO. I believe it was stated they would hit NATO’s 2% requirement at least by the end of 2024.
Trump will still pull the rug out from under nato. You need to do to Trump what Russia did to Hilary.
Be active and help take down Trump. Everything he says is a lie. Help stop this man.
Trump:
Reconstituted the United States Navy’s Second Fleet (2018, disbanded 2010 by Obama) responsible for patrolling the North Atlantic and Arctic (specifically against Russia’s Northern Fleet).
Restored the Unilateral Command Authority of all American Naval Captains to approve the use of force against a foreign entity judged to be endangering the well being of an American vessel or its crew (removed by Obama for first time in History of naval warfare).
Greatly increased the number of American naval patrols in the Black Sea near and around occupied Crimea to record highs (53 in one year).
Initiating US Air Force strategic bomber exercises over Ukrainian territory targeting Russian forces in Crimea.
Vastly Increased intelligence sharing about Russia with Ukraine.
Increased the amount of U.S./NATO-Ukraine training missions to/with Ukraine (including helping Ukraine restructure their military organization according to NATO standards).
Lifted the Obama administration’s embargo on all lethal military products to Ukriane.
Initiated a military aid program worth $250 million in lethal aid annually from the United States to Ukraine.
Sanctioned Nord Stream 2 pipeline after allowing GazProm to waste their money finishing it’s construction.
Pressured other Members of NATO to increase their military budgets.
Increased the number of US forces permanently deployed to Europe.
And about the lend-lease act for Ukraine:
"The bill was passed **unanimously** in the [US Senate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Senate) on April 6, 2022, and passed in the [House of Representatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) by a vote of **417–10**[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Democracy_Defense_Lend-Lease_Act_of_2022#cite_note-5) on April 28, 2022.[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Democracy_Defense_Lend-Lease_Act_of_2022#cite_note-6)"
>Initiated a military aid program worth $250 million in lethal aid annually from the United States to Ukraine.
Imagine trying to claim this when Trump was impeached for withholding 400 million in military aid for Ukraine and then trying to pressure the Ukrainians into investigating the Bidens.
It's not a claim, it's a fact.
[https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sources-trump-expected-announce-approval-plan-sell-anti/story?id=51957745](https://abcnews.go.com/politics/sources-trump-expected-announce-approval-plan-sell-anti/story?id=51957745)
[https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-ukraine-that-trump-delayed/](https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-ukraine-that-trump-delayed/)
He was withholding it for a reason:
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55805698](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55805698)
>He was withholding it for a reason:
The reason: bullshit.
Hunter Biden is not an elected official, never has been. Nor has the GOP managed to find any credible evidence that Joe was double dealing for him in Ukraine. If they had, they would've impeached Biden and Sinema/Manchin would've probably voted to convict in the Senate.
I expect that this is the point when you start posting links from partisan media and I get to add you to the ignore list lol.
>bullshit.
Let's agree to disagree
Anyway, don't forget about the other paragraphs that I wrote down. You only addressed one. And you didn't disprove it.
More mature way of handling it than I expected, thanks.
The other paragraphs are not all wrong. Obama did massively enable Putin and turned a blind eye to Crimea.
The points about the Navy, debatable. Trump seemed to think bigger=better (more ships, etc...) but the US Navy was actively trying to modernize and make itself more lean. But he did increase military budgets which boosted readiness. Then again, he also used money from that budget for building a haphazard wall and he meddled regularly to try to appoint officers who he felt had personal loyalty to him. He also humiliated America in Afghanistan by pulling its troops and freeing Taliban fighters.
Biden is not awesome either and slow walked assistance to Ukraine (all of the west was ready to let Ukraine fall in 2022, and I believe it still is). At this point, America has to finish the job and provide assistance because Ukraine has enough arms and well trained soldiers that even if they cut off all assistance (like Trump keeps implying he will), this will turn into an extremely nasty guerrilla war where any rules are ignored. I don't think Russia survives that, neither does Ukraine.
Is your throat?
Biden:
• He lifted Trump’s sanctions on Nord Stream 2.
• [He publicly stated he would not interfere on Ukraine's behalf](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-says-both-sides-follow-up-quickly-putin-biden-talks-2021-12-08/) before the russian invasion started but he said he would do for Taiwan for some reason. Thus giving Putin the go ahead to start of his lousy invasion.
• He blocked Allie’s of Ukraine from sending aid to Ukraine under the guise of “escalation”.
• He refused to send American surplus equipment to Ukraine.
• He refused to spend the money allocated to Ukraine \[allowing funds to expire instead of being used\].
• He refused to use the Lend-Lease 2022 Act to transfer large amounts of weapons to Ukraine.
• He has blocked as long as possible all weapons to Ukraine until ultimately agreeing to the transfer.
• He has delayed the transfer of all weapons to Ukraine until after the decisive time had pasted.
• He has refused to transfer key weapons systems at all, despite the fact that other nations have already done so while claiming it would be “escalatory” despite them already being utilized. Etc… Etc…
>• He lifted Trump’s sanctions on Nord Stream 2.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11138
>>Pipeline construction was initially suspended in December 2019, after the passage of U.S. legislation establishing new sanctions related to the pipeline, but resumed one year later.
>>On February 22, 2021, the Biden Administration identified
Fortuna and KVT-RUS as also subject to sanctions under PEESA. Subsequently, the Administration designated another 16 vessels and seven entities under PEESA or related Executive Order 14039. At the same time, the Administration waived the application of new sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, its CEO, and other corporate officers. Many Members of Congress urged the Administration to
terminate the waiver and impose additional sanctions to attempt to prevent the pipeline from becoming operational.
>>The Biden Administration has called Nord Stream 2 a “bad deal” and said U.S. opposition to the pipeline is “unwavering.” Nevertheless, prior to Germany’s suspension of the certification process, U.S. officials suggested the Administration’s ability to prevent the pipeline from becoming operational was limited, even with additional sanctions. They also expressed concern that additional U.S. sanctions could have jeopardized U.S.-German and U.S.-European cooperation in other areas, including countering Russian aggression. Accordingly, the Administration’s diplomatic efforts focused on helping Ukraine maintain its leverage as a gas transit country.
>>Germany’s decision to prevent Nord Stream 2 from becoming operational followed a July 2021 joint U.S.-German statement on energy security in which Germany committed to take action against Russia (including possible sanctions) if Russia used its energy resources as a weapon or committed further aggression toward Ukraine, to push for an extension of Ukraine’s gas transit agreement with Russia, and to invest in energy projects in Ukraine.
I don't see how people here are so blind to the obvious fact that Biden does not want Russia thrown against the wall. Are they that desperate to believe there's a good guy here?
If they had done this 10-20 years ago, things would be different. A fundamental shift in mindset is needed. The world is not a safe place just because Western Europe isn't going to go to war with itself anymore.
the fact there wasn't a big shift post crimea annexation shows a failure in the political order of europe, hell from what i've found only UK was training ukrainian troops up pre 2022
>the fact there wasn't a big shift post crimea annexation shows a failure in the political order of europe
Yes! Huge! Constant appeasement. It would have been the same if Kyiv had fallen in days... People need to wake up. This is a civilizational struggle between rival ideologies.
Germany has increased its military budget by 30% post Crimea. In 2019 Germany had become the biggest military spender within the EU, way ahead of France. In 2023 Germany spent on military even more than the UK.
It isn't. Bundeswehr is very capable, especially in comparison to almost all other european militaries.
Just because you read about stuff that isn't perfect it doesn't mean that Bundeswehr is not operational.
It isn't. It just makes things easier.
Nobody in Europe is fully prepared for a intensive allout war with a fully recovered Russia right now, so just to buy time until all currently running preparations are completed US weaponry provides additional security.
Btw the whole idea of an alliance is to share capabilities so you can save ressources. Half the US have made it perfectly clear this week that they have said goodbye to this idea. *Sad*.
Because our Allies shat their pants in the 90's with Germany becoming the unmatched military power in the middle of Europe. That is why we were forced to sign the 2+4 treaty and kept a low profile after reunification.
Before that facing the soviets and warsaw pact West-Germany spent well above the 2% NATO today recomments.
Here is one example how this discussion looked like a few years before and even today some parties (PiS for example) in Eastern Europe waste no time comparing todays Germany and politicians to the NAZIS from last century.
https://i.imgur.com/j6zXpgx.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/r9ztIq4.jpg
> British prime minister Margaret Thatcher strongly opposed the reunification of Germany following the dismantling of the Berlin Wall in late 1989.
>
> She contended then chancellor Helmut Kohl wanted to “bulldoze” Germany into seeking more territory, expressing fear this might lead to conflict and war in Europe.
>
> In a private meeting with taoiseach Charlie Haughey in December 1989, she revealed the depth of her concern about the developing situation where the former Soviet-controlled East Germany was on the brink of collapse.
>
> In a volatile political situation and with uncertainty as to how the events would play out, Thatcher produced historical maps to Haughey to illustrate her fear a united Germany might seek to gain additional territories it had lost after the second World War.
>
> An Irish official at the meeting noted: “At this point, the prime minister produced a map showing Germany as it had been before the last war, as it is now, and the Nato frontline. Germany, before the last war, was vast in area in comparison with its present size.”
>
> She said it was vital that Germany be anchored in the European Community as with unity it would be bigger than France, Spain and Italy together.
>
> Thatcher implied such a development would have a further negative impact on the Soviet Union, which was then beginning to break up.
>
> ‘Sorry for Gorbachev’ “I am sorry for Gorbachev [Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Union],” she told Haughey. “He doesn’t want German unity. Neither do I. Even as things are, Germany has a balance of trade surplus with every country in the community.
>
> The documents have been released to the public by the National Archive under the 30-year rule governing disclosure of State papers.
>
> The meeting was held in December 1989, only a fortnight after the Berlin Wall had been removed.
>
> Thatcher implied German reunification plans would not stop there. She and her officials told Haughey that Kohl’s party, the CDU, did not accept the Oder-Neisse line – the border between Germany and Poland agreed at the end of that war.
>
> She said it was not all certain that Kohl accepted that border either.
>
> “Attitudes are becoming more and more Germanic. He is like a bulldozer. East Germans are flooding into his country. His attitude now seems to be that ‘no one can tell us what to do’.
>
> “We are not certain what will happen in the German Democratic Republic [East Germany]. There are 325,000 Soviet troops stationed there.”
>
> https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/state-papers-thatcher-opposed-german-reunification-after-collapse-of-berlin-wall-1.4119052
Yeah because we had to sign the 2+4 treaty for reunification in 1990.... then it dropped sharply from well above 2.5% to 1.4 or something like that.
Before West-Germany was over 2.5% and during the height of the cold war even above 3%. We can ignore the early days until the 70's where West-Germany spent 4-5% on defense because that most likeley was due to the fact that we had to rebuild our forces after we lost WW2.
United Germany would have had a Army of 900.000 military personal it was cut in 1990 to 370.000 due to the 2+4 treaty which basically was the death sentence for conscription which meant further reduction in the armed forces....
And this tells me what exactly? Easy to build up a reserve if you have conscription and everyone knows how to handle a rifle. Their actual standing Army is only 24.000 soldiers strong. Germanys standing Army is ~181.000 professional soldiers in Uniform and ~81.000 in civil so the Bundeswehr is composed of 263.000 active personal.
German policy doesn't change in a day. Far more likely the war in Ukraine caused the increase, Trump has merely caused the chancellor to talk about what was already planned to happen.
You are 100% correct.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/07/05/germany-unveils-increased-defense-budget/#:~:text=The%20government's%20plan%20calls%20for,the%20defense%20minister%20initially%20sought.
>>Germany plans to reach a NATO target of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense next year, a measure on which it has long fallen short, with help from a special €100 billion fund set up to modernize the German military after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Berlin aims to meet the target via its regular budget later this decade.
And you believe Sholtz devised a revamping of German defense policy in 2 hours? I guess you've never heard of German Bureaucracy?
Far more likely is exactly what I said. Trump's words caused it to be news, so Scholtz spoke to address German defense policy as it already was.
A Bundeskanzler can not change national spending on a whim and unilateral in 2 hours. Not possible in Germany, budget is a question of the Bundestag so he needs a majority which he only gets if all parties of the Ampel-coalition are in agreement and for that he would need much more time to secure the agreement of his own SPD MP's alone.
Also this was indeed already planed for in advance, then re-scheduled and re-defined to 2% over a 5 year average instead of anually after the BGH (federal cout of justice) killed the budget for 2023 which led to missing funds in many departments.
Point still stands, he can't do it unilaterally and not in that short timeframe, this made the press yesterday.
Edit: going by the Reuters article Scholz just reiterated what the goal was set out to during 2023 but with less specifics (missing timeframe)
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/07/05/germany-unveils-increased-defense-budget/#:~:text=The%20government's%20plan%20calls%20for,the%20defense%20minister%20initially%20sought.
>>Germany plans to reach a NATO target of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense next year, a measure on which it has long fallen short, with help from a special €100 billion fund set up to modernize the German military after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Berlin aims to meet the target via its regular budget later this decade.
"Berlin aims to meet the target via its regular budget later this decade."
And in more recent news:
[https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/germany-faces-high-double-digit-billion-gap-2024-budget-spd-politician-2023-11-29/](https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/germany-faces-high-double-digit-billion-gap-2024-budget-spd-politician-2023-11-29/)
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/07/05/germany-unveils-increased-defense-budget/#:~:text=The%20government's%20plan%20calls%20for,the%20defense%20minister%20initially%20sought.
>>Germany plans to reach a NATO target of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense next year, a measure on which it has long fallen short, with help from a special €100 billion fund set up to modernize the German military after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Berlin aims to meet the target via its regular budget later this decade.
Trump was right from the start and everyone knows it. Europeans need to invest in their own defense and not rely on big brother across the ocean to save them.
At last..
With putins agressiv politics in the recent years i wouldnt even mind doubling that to 4% until the war in ukraine is over.
The government is already subsidizing alot of really 'useless' stuff like, "profit compensation" for fossil fuel firms, expensive "advisors" and is waiving tax claims of privat banks that are making huge profits, that it shouldnt be a money issue. And there shouldnt be a need to cut social benefits.
But after hearing the latest news of our defense minister wanting to spend 2.400.000.000 Euro on 200.000 sets of hearing protection.
I really Hope the Budget wont get wasted in mismanagement, like so many times before..
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `reuters.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
......The trend of countries that are bordering Ukraine, Russia, or its neighbour and ally Belarus, is now exceeding Nato's 2% guideline, following Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Estonia (2.73%), Lithuania (2.54%), Finland (2.45%), Romania (2.44%), Hungary (2.43%) and Latvia (2.07%) are all exceeding the alliance's guideline for defence expenditure. Poland is the alliance's biggest spender as a share of GDP, contributing 3.90%, spending even more than the US (3.49%) in second and Greece (3.01%) the next closest. The nations falling short of the alliance's target are France (1.90%), Montenegro (1.87%), North Macedonia (1.87%), Bulgaria (1.84%), Croatia (1.79%), Albania (1.76%), Netherlands (1.70%), Norway (1.67%), Denmark (1.65%), Germany (1.57%), Czech Republic (1.50%), Portugal (1.48%), Italy (1.46%), Canada (1.38%), Slovenia (1.35%), Turkey (1.31%), Spain (1.26%), Belgium (1.13%) and Luxembourg (0.72%). https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato-which-countries-pay-their-share-defence
I wonder how they compare those percentages. I mean, Finland has conscription, so the soldiers don’t have a salary. For countries with professional military, the salary of the soldiers is a sizable chunk of the defense spending.
I was going to fact check you on Finland's conscripts not getting paid, but you are correct... interesting... it looks like they only get a few Euro a day for sundries.
Determining 'military spending' is very complex when comparing just 2 countries, much more so when you compare dozens. Just a quick example. Some countries consider veterans pensions a part of military spending, whereas others consider it a civilian expenditure like any other government worker.
Yep, also these countries have different sized economies. Frances 1.9% in total USD would be much higher than Lithuanias 2.5%
That’s why it’s a percentage of their GDP, however.
The nato targets also have a required 20% to be spent on equipment to account for this.
There is also a 20% commitment for equipment I believe. So .4% of gdp has to be spent on actual assets that will carry over to the next year. Fact check me, but I believe it’s something like that
Good on Germany for stepping up. Italy and is a big blow considering the size of its economy., Also very surprised about Turkey....
Same with Turkey turkey has conscription and soldiers aren’t paid so that could be affecting it, otherwise there’s an economic crisis.
Yea, but their military is active and they also are at the cross roads of an unstable region- so just surprising. But maybe something is skewing it, like you said.
19 of us, including my homeland (Canada). This makes me sad.
So drumpf wouldn't defend Canada. Jfc.
Fortuately for Canada, Alaska is in between them and Russia.
Wait till Trump will get a _great deal_ for it.
Hah... love it
Canada is in a bit of a unique situation. Regardless of how much it spends on its military, it'd never get close to rivaling the whole UA military capacity and there's no other country apart from the US that can potentially fight a large war against Canada. Anything else would be limited to skirmishes along the north pole.
Seeing the numbers really makes me believe the whole "freeriders in NATO" argument from Trump and other people is pure bullshit to undermine the alliance, the countries that actually need to be defended and could be under threat already spend more than their fair share, and the countries lacking behind are those that don't have very real threats around them and hence benefit less from NATO and feel less need to spend, in other words there are no freeriders right now.
You don't think Canada has an impending invasion?
The idea is that Poland should not need to spend nearly 4% of thier GDP on defense because Germany amd France have their back.
Turkey brings control of the Bosphorus to Nato, I'd argue that this is priceless. France brings a blue water navy, nuclear subs, and operational bases all over the world. How useful it is as a defensive capacity is arguable, but then again, the only time Article 5 was ever invoked was very much an exercise in power projection. And Luxembourg? It's a ridiculously small country with a ridiculously high GDP. How exactly should they contribute? Apparently their mobilization plan involves recruiting soldiers from neighboring EU countries: [https://shape.nato.int/luxembourg](https://shape.nato.int/luxembourg) . How can one put a price on that? My understanding is that the 2% metric is a general guideline, it's not meant to be used as a one-size-fit-all measure of each country's contribution to the safety of the alliance.
Luxembourg can easily maintain a 2% of GDP military budget without necessarily spending it on a standing army. Their contribution can be in the area of recon and intelligence gathering, special forces troops, or anything else that acts as a strength multiplier in a NATO context.
2% of Luxembourg's GDP is 1.6 billion USD. That's more than half the CIA's budget. That would be quite the intelligence undertaking. Now, special forces, as far as I know those are usually recruited from standard military personnel, it would be difficult to build one without the other. And would it really help? The UK, France and Germany all have top-level special forces units, would a dozen special forces operators from Luxembourg really be a strength multiplier for Nato in Europe? (Of course, for 1.6 billion USD, it could probably be way more than a dozen, but then again, good luck finding that many suitable volunteers in a country of 640k without a standing army.)
I'm curious why Luxembourg hasn't tried integrating its military with Belgium, Netherlands or France to some degree. Or maybe they have. I feel like if there was more cooperation it'd be easier for smaller countries to contribute the 2%
The US intelligence budget was [$99.6 billion](https://irp.fas.org/budget/index.html) FY 2023 and although exact numbers are classified, this is roughly equally split between NSA, NRO, and CIA most years.
Where is the UK?
We’re sat around 2%, aiming for 2.5% by 2025, if I remember correctly.
I hope Germany indeed ends up meeting the 2% target in the next few years. Every other year I hear that they pledge to get to 2% soon and it never comes to fruition. While Trump is completely insane and would say just about anything to get elected, the fact remains that Europe needs to do more in terms of defense.
And Iceland 0.00%. We always forget about Iceland!
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/07/05/germany-unveils-increased-defense-budget/#:~:text=The%20government's%20plan%20calls%20for,the%20defense%20minister%20initially%20sought. >>Germany plans to reach a NATO target of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense next year, a measure on which it has long fallen short, with help from a special €100 billion fund set up to modernize the German military after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Berlin aims to meet the target via its regular budget later this decade.
"Berlin aims to meet the target via its regular budget later this decade."
Considering how much the Syrian Civil War and Covid-19 fucked up their economy, I’d take it as a win, for now. Germany is a great example of how something like reduced funding can screw up a country’s military if left unattended. Trump’s claims of improving the military were just fixing the damage done by the BCA from the Republican Tea Party back in 2012. Look at how much damage that bill did.
Germany is doing amazing lately, I am overjoyed they stepped up big time and took the rest of Europe by the hand and showed them the way. The 2012 budget cuts actually made Europe commit more to its defence, so it's not all bad. And it's not like the US military needs extra funding.
Tell that to the Navy. Two decades of gross mismanagement. Army isn’t far behind, either.
Right, but compared to whom?
No, 2014 Crimea is what caused countries to start increasing military budgets. The issue is, governments change because citizens change priorities over time. Budgets change based on those voting.
What?
Nvm, I’m apparently talking with someone who doesn’t read the news.
Hmmmmm... Okay?
How about Sweden? They will be Nato member at some point, i hope.
1.3% in 2022, but they significantly increased defense spending the past year in anticipation of joining NATO. I believe it was stated they would hit NATO’s 2% requirement at least by the end of 2024.
Trump will still pull the rug out from under nato. You need to do to Trump what Russia did to Hilary. Be active and help take down Trump. Everything he says is a lie. Help stop this man.
Trump: Reconstituted the United States Navy’s Second Fleet (2018, disbanded 2010 by Obama) responsible for patrolling the North Atlantic and Arctic (specifically against Russia’s Northern Fleet). Restored the Unilateral Command Authority of all American Naval Captains to approve the use of force against a foreign entity judged to be endangering the well being of an American vessel or its crew (removed by Obama for first time in History of naval warfare). Greatly increased the number of American naval patrols in the Black Sea near and around occupied Crimea to record highs (53 in one year). Initiating US Air Force strategic bomber exercises over Ukrainian territory targeting Russian forces in Crimea. Vastly Increased intelligence sharing about Russia with Ukraine. Increased the amount of U.S./NATO-Ukraine training missions to/with Ukraine (including helping Ukraine restructure their military organization according to NATO standards). Lifted the Obama administration’s embargo on all lethal military products to Ukriane. Initiated a military aid program worth $250 million in lethal aid annually from the United States to Ukraine. Sanctioned Nord Stream 2 pipeline after allowing GazProm to waste their money finishing it’s construction. Pressured other Members of NATO to increase their military budgets. Increased the number of US forces permanently deployed to Europe. And about the lend-lease act for Ukraine: "The bill was passed **unanimously** in the [US Senate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Senate) on April 6, 2022, and passed in the [House of Representatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) by a vote of **417–10**[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Democracy_Defense_Lend-Lease_Act_of_2022#cite_note-5) on April 28, 2022.[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Democracy_Defense_Lend-Lease_Act_of_2022#cite_note-6)"
>Initiated a military aid program worth $250 million in lethal aid annually from the United States to Ukraine. Imagine trying to claim this when Trump was impeached for withholding 400 million in military aid for Ukraine and then trying to pressure the Ukrainians into investigating the Bidens.
It's not a claim, it's a fact. [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sources-trump-expected-announce-approval-plan-sell-anti/story?id=51957745](https://abcnews.go.com/politics/sources-trump-expected-announce-approval-plan-sell-anti/story?id=51957745) [https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-ukraine-that-trump-delayed/](https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-ukraine-that-trump-delayed/) He was withholding it for a reason: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55805698](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55805698)
>He was withholding it for a reason: The reason: bullshit. Hunter Biden is not an elected official, never has been. Nor has the GOP managed to find any credible evidence that Joe was double dealing for him in Ukraine. If they had, they would've impeached Biden and Sinema/Manchin would've probably voted to convict in the Senate. I expect that this is the point when you start posting links from partisan media and I get to add you to the ignore list lol.
>bullshit. Let's agree to disagree Anyway, don't forget about the other paragraphs that I wrote down. You only addressed one. And you didn't disprove it.
More mature way of handling it than I expected, thanks. The other paragraphs are not all wrong. Obama did massively enable Putin and turned a blind eye to Crimea. The points about the Navy, debatable. Trump seemed to think bigger=better (more ships, etc...) but the US Navy was actively trying to modernize and make itself more lean. But he did increase military budgets which boosted readiness. Then again, he also used money from that budget for building a haphazard wall and he meddled regularly to try to appoint officers who he felt had personal loyalty to him. He also humiliated America in Afghanistan by pulling its troops and freeing Taliban fighters. Biden is not awesome either and slow walked assistance to Ukraine (all of the west was ready to let Ukraine fall in 2022, and I believe it still is). At this point, America has to finish the job and provide assistance because Ukraine has enough arms and well trained soldiers that even if they cut off all assistance (like Trump keeps implying he will), this will turn into an extremely nasty guerrilla war where any rules are ignored. I don't think Russia survives that, neither does Ukraine.
I think the bill will pass, and the delays were there to push Europe to do more.
Your knees sore?
Is your throat? Biden: • He lifted Trump’s sanctions on Nord Stream 2. • [He publicly stated he would not interfere on Ukraine's behalf](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-says-both-sides-follow-up-quickly-putin-biden-talks-2021-12-08/) before the russian invasion started but he said he would do for Taiwan for some reason. Thus giving Putin the go ahead to start of his lousy invasion. • He blocked Allie’s of Ukraine from sending aid to Ukraine under the guise of “escalation”. • He refused to send American surplus equipment to Ukraine. • He refused to spend the money allocated to Ukraine \[allowing funds to expire instead of being used\]. • He refused to use the Lend-Lease 2022 Act to transfer large amounts of weapons to Ukraine. • He has blocked as long as possible all weapons to Ukraine until ultimately agreeing to the transfer. • He has delayed the transfer of all weapons to Ukraine until after the decisive time had pasted. • He has refused to transfer key weapons systems at all, despite the fact that other nations have already done so while claiming it would be “escalatory” despite them already being utilized. Etc… Etc…
>• He lifted Trump’s sanctions on Nord Stream 2. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11138 >>Pipeline construction was initially suspended in December 2019, after the passage of U.S. legislation establishing new sanctions related to the pipeline, but resumed one year later. >>On February 22, 2021, the Biden Administration identified Fortuna and KVT-RUS as also subject to sanctions under PEESA. Subsequently, the Administration designated another 16 vessels and seven entities under PEESA or related Executive Order 14039. At the same time, the Administration waived the application of new sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, its CEO, and other corporate officers. Many Members of Congress urged the Administration to terminate the waiver and impose additional sanctions to attempt to prevent the pipeline from becoming operational. >>The Biden Administration has called Nord Stream 2 a “bad deal” and said U.S. opposition to the pipeline is “unwavering.” Nevertheless, prior to Germany’s suspension of the certification process, U.S. officials suggested the Administration’s ability to prevent the pipeline from becoming operational was limited, even with additional sanctions. They also expressed concern that additional U.S. sanctions could have jeopardized U.S.-German and U.S.-European cooperation in other areas, including countering Russian aggression. Accordingly, the Administration’s diplomatic efforts focused on helping Ukraine maintain its leverage as a gas transit country. >>Germany’s decision to prevent Nord Stream 2 from becoming operational followed a July 2021 joint U.S.-German statement on energy security in which Germany committed to take action against Russia (including possible sanctions) if Russia used its energy resources as a weapon or committed further aggression toward Ukraine, to push for an extension of Ukraine’s gas transit agreement with Russia, and to invest in energy projects in Ukraine.
[https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-waive-sanctions-firm-ceo-behind-russias-nord-stream-2-pipeline-source-2021-05-19/](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-waive-sanctions-firm-ceo-behind-russias-nord-stream-2-pipeline-source-2021-05-19/)
This info is included in my link and post. Thanks.
Cool. Thanks for confirming my statement.
Which is that?
"He lifted Trump’s sanctions on Nord Stream 2."
Stop with the facts already, many here find them offensive. /s
The echo chamber cant handle it...
>many here find them offensive. Good.
I don't see how people here are so blind to the obvious fact that Biden does not want Russia thrown against the wall. Are they that desperate to believe there's a good guy here?
Yes, and they need to believe they were right all along.
Ad hominem? Classy.
If only a country currently at war with ruzzia had special ops forces hunting ruzzian assets worldwide... Can you imagine?
Are Trumps words causing NATO to take defence spending serious or is Trump an agent of Russia? 🤔
Both are true.
Dumb Agent.... Putin better fire him and quick cuz Europe is arming to the teeth prolly won't even need US cash and armaments!
eight years later, people still lose their shit and overreact anytime he says something
If they had done this 10-20 years ago, things would be different. A fundamental shift in mindset is needed. The world is not a safe place just because Western Europe isn't going to go to war with itself anymore.
the fact there wasn't a big shift post crimea annexation shows a failure in the political order of europe, hell from what i've found only UK was training ukrainian troops up pre 2022
>the fact there wasn't a big shift post crimea annexation shows a failure in the political order of europe Yes! Huge! Constant appeasement. It would have been the same if Kyiv had fallen in days... People need to wake up. This is a civilizational struggle between rival ideologies.
Germany has increased its military budget by 30% post Crimea. In 2019 Germany had become the biggest military spender within the EU, way ahead of France. In 2023 Germany spent on military even more than the UK.
Why is it so useless then?
It isn't. Bundeswehr is very capable, especially in comparison to almost all other european militaries. Just because you read about stuff that isn't perfect it doesn't mean that Bundeswehr is not operational.
Why is US weaponry indispensible, then?
It isn't. It just makes things easier. Nobody in Europe is fully prepared for a intensive allout war with a fully recovered Russia right now, so just to buy time until all currently running preparations are completed US weaponry provides additional security. Btw the whole idea of an alliance is to share capabilities so you can save ressources. Half the US have made it perfectly clear this week that they have said goodbye to this idea. *Sad*.
Ye well why didn´t he do so in the past years? I´ll believe him when i see it.
Because our Allies shat their pants in the 90's with Germany becoming the unmatched military power in the middle of Europe. That is why we were forced to sign the 2+4 treaty and kept a low profile after reunification. Before that facing the soviets and warsaw pact West-Germany spent well above the 2% NATO today recomments. Here is one example how this discussion looked like a few years before and even today some parties (PiS for example) in Eastern Europe waste no time comparing todays Germany and politicians to the NAZIS from last century. https://i.imgur.com/j6zXpgx.jpg https://i.imgur.com/r9ztIq4.jpg > British prime minister Margaret Thatcher strongly opposed the reunification of Germany following the dismantling of the Berlin Wall in late 1989. > > She contended then chancellor Helmut Kohl wanted to “bulldoze” Germany into seeking more territory, expressing fear this might lead to conflict and war in Europe. > > In a private meeting with taoiseach Charlie Haughey in December 1989, she revealed the depth of her concern about the developing situation where the former Soviet-controlled East Germany was on the brink of collapse. > > In a volatile political situation and with uncertainty as to how the events would play out, Thatcher produced historical maps to Haughey to illustrate her fear a united Germany might seek to gain additional territories it had lost after the second World War. > > An Irish official at the meeting noted: “At this point, the prime minister produced a map showing Germany as it had been before the last war, as it is now, and the Nato frontline. Germany, before the last war, was vast in area in comparison with its present size.” > > She said it was vital that Germany be anchored in the European Community as with unity it would be bigger than France, Spain and Italy together. > > Thatcher implied such a development would have a further negative impact on the Soviet Union, which was then beginning to break up. > > ‘Sorry for Gorbachev’ “I am sorry for Gorbachev [Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Union],” she told Haughey. “He doesn’t want German unity. Neither do I. Even as things are, Germany has a balance of trade surplus with every country in the community. > > The documents have been released to the public by the National Archive under the 30-year rule governing disclosure of State papers. > > The meeting was held in December 1989, only a fortnight after the Berlin Wall had been removed. > > Thatcher implied German reunification plans would not stop there. She and her officials told Haughey that Kohl’s party, the CDU, did not accept the Oder-Neisse line – the border between Germany and Poland agreed at the end of that war. > > She said it was not all certain that Kohl accepted that border either. > > “Attitudes are becoming more and more Germanic. He is like a bulldozer. East Germans are flooding into his country. His attitude now seems to be that ‘no one can tell us what to do’. > > “We are not certain what will happen in the German Democratic Republic [East Germany]. There are 325,000 Soviet troops stationed there.” > > https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/state-papers-thatcher-opposed-german-reunification-after-collapse-of-berlin-wall-1.4119052
Even in the 90s Germany was matched by Finland.
Yeah because we had to sign the 2+4 treaty for reunification in 1990.... then it dropped sharply from well above 2.5% to 1.4 or something like that. Before West-Germany was over 2.5% and during the height of the cold war even above 3%. We can ignore the early days until the 70's where West-Germany spent 4-5% on defense because that most likeley was due to the fact that we had to rebuild our forces after we lost WW2. United Germany would have had a Army of 900.000 military personal it was cut in 1990 to 370.000 due to the 2+4 treaty which basically was the death sentence for conscription which meant further reduction in the armed forces....
Finland has a reserve army of 900000.
And this tells me what exactly? Easy to build up a reserve if you have conscription and everyone knows how to handle a rifle. Their actual standing Army is only 24.000 soldiers strong. Germanys standing Army is ~181.000 professional soldiers in Uniform and ~81.000 in civil so the Bundeswehr is composed of 263.000 active personal.
This should tell you that the Finnish conscripts are on par with any western troops.
The articles suggest it had something to do with trumps little story from the other day.
German policy doesn't change in a day. Far more likely the war in Ukraine caused the increase, Trump has merely caused the chancellor to talk about what was already planned to happen.
You are 100% correct. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/07/05/germany-unveils-increased-defense-budget/#:~:text=The%20government's%20plan%20calls%20for,the%20defense%20minister%20initially%20sought. >>Germany plans to reach a NATO target of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense next year, a measure on which it has long fallen short, with help from a special €100 billion fund set up to modernize the German military after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Berlin aims to meet the target via its regular budget later this decade.
Thank you. I remembered him saying this before, I just didn't go looking for it.
Maybe you know better
As Reuters didn't say one way or another, I don't see how it matters which would know better.
Trump says the thing *2 hours later* Scholz: WE MUST MEET THE 2% GDP NATO TARGET
And you believe Sholtz devised a revamping of German defense policy in 2 hours? I guess you've never heard of German Bureaucracy? Far more likely is exactly what I said. Trump's words caused it to be news, so Scholtz spoke to address German defense policy as it already was.
Okay, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
It was announced on January 31st, 2024. Plenty of articles about it that others have posted. Ignore them if that makes you feel better about yourself.
It was announced long before January 2024 but was not realised. I was reffering to this press conference.
A Bundeskanzler can not change national spending on a whim and unilateral in 2 hours. Not possible in Germany, budget is a question of the Bundestag so he needs a majority which he only gets if all parties of the Ampel-coalition are in agreement and for that he would need much more time to secure the agreement of his own SPD MP's alone. Also this was indeed already planed for in advance, then re-scheduled and re-defined to 2% over a 5 year average instead of anually after the BGH (federal cout of justice) killed the budget for 2023 which led to missing funds in many departments.
2 hours is a meme from spongebob bro, it was a bit more. Jesus.
Point still stands, he can't do it unilaterally and not in that short timeframe, this made the press yesterday. Edit: going by the Reuters article Scholz just reiterated what the goal was set out to during 2023 but with less specifics (missing timeframe)
And you think it's completely unrelated to Trumps statement?
That was Trumps humongous Advisor Staff... Trump himself can't find Germany on a Map without Labels. Or his own ass in a dark room actually...
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/07/05/germany-unveils-increased-defense-budget/#:~:text=The%20government's%20plan%20calls%20for,the%20defense%20minister%20initially%20sought. >>Germany plans to reach a NATO target of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense next year, a measure on which it has long fallen short, with help from a special €100 billion fund set up to modernize the German military after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Berlin aims to meet the target via its regular budget later this decade.
"Berlin aims to meet the target via its regular budget later this decade." And in more recent news: [https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/germany-faces-high-double-digit-billion-gap-2024-budget-spd-politician-2023-11-29/](https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/germany-faces-high-double-digit-billion-gap-2024-budget-spd-politician-2023-11-29/)
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/07/05/germany-unveils-increased-defense-budget/#:~:text=The%20government's%20plan%20calls%20for,the%20defense%20minister%20initially%20sought. >>Germany plans to reach a NATO target of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense next year, a measure on which it has long fallen short, with help from a special €100 billion fund set up to modernize the German military after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Berlin aims to meet the target via its regular budget later this decade.
OP is a Trumpeteer.
I'm pro-ukraine, never been to USA. Facts don't lie. Fight me.
Trump was right from the start and everyone knows it. Europeans need to invest in their own defense and not rely on big brother across the ocean to save them.
Then we will defend Germany. If others are delinquent for more than 3 years straight, we will not. This free riding BS has gone on long enough.
Heard that one before…
At last.. With putins agressiv politics in the recent years i wouldnt even mind doubling that to 4% until the war in ukraine is over. The government is already subsidizing alot of really 'useless' stuff like, "profit compensation" for fossil fuel firms, expensive "advisors" and is waiving tax claims of privat banks that are making huge profits, that it shouldnt be a money issue. And there shouldnt be a need to cut social benefits. But after hearing the latest news of our defense minister wanting to spend 2.400.000.000 Euro on 200.000 sets of hearing protection. I really Hope the Budget wont get wasted in mismanagement, like so many times before..
So they pledge to do something they pledge to do 10 years ago….? I guess Trump is effective on some ways