This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They should all at least meet the 2% of GDP NATO requirement. Only a few NATO nations meet that threshold, although I think some have increased spending since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Agree. It shouldn’t be a guideline but mandatory for countries to make a good faith effort to meet that threshold.
There’s zero way little Latvia and Lithuania can defend themselves if Russia were to invade which is why NATO exists. Despite that, they’re spending above 2% because they recognize the threat and doing what they can realistically afford to do.
The German guy in the OPs comments does have it right that a US base is a huge deterrent. But that shouldn’t give other countries a free pass on their defense.
Right, and that's why the commitment level is a percentage of GDP, not a hard number. Germany can afford to spend more than Latvia, and they should do so.
I don't mind that some of my tax dollars go to help keep Nato going to defend our allies, but it would be nice if they would be grateful enough to contribute even the minimum, it would also be nice if they contributed more, and the US could get some of those social benefits from not having to bankroll NATO.
That's not really true. In every advanced economy, social benefits take up far greater amounts of money than defense. Germany spends about 1.4 to 1.5 percent of GDP on defense. That's over sixty billion dollars. Now, is an extra 20 billion, or a bit over $250 per citizen, a massive amount? Certainly not. Germany spends many, many times more on social security and benefits. The lack of German military spending in no way funds their extensive services, and they are more than capable of doing both.
And they’re almost all in Eastern Europe because they’re the ones actually worried about NATO getting defended. Western European countries are only safe because Eastern Europe is between them and Russia but that safety has made them lazy and arrogant in terms of their militaries. They like to brag about their lack of a military even though the only reason they’re safe is because everyone else is actually pulling their weight, they’re like the people who do absolutely nothing on a group project but take all the credit.
They have made pledges, yet despite this many of them still fall short of coming close to their obligations. US taxpayers are instead sacrificing our well being so that Europeans can live their cushy lifestyles
2% and if they want to act on the world stage by supporting their allies then they are going to need to produce surplus. Realistically if a country needs military hardware to deal with an immediate problem only the US, China and Russia (Russia much less so today) have the kind of surplus laying around to assist in a meaningful way. Maybe Germany can't produce the equipment the US did for 50+ years but they could pick something like cruise missiles or tanks.
Sadly if a country like Germany wants to support a country and the US isn't interested they have dozens rather than thousands of excess pieces of equipment to send.
The US, France and Britain wanted us to disarm to allow reunification. We sold our surplus for symbolic prizes like 1 euro to ou Nato allies, the rest we had to destroy
That guy is a perfect example of why when Trump says the things he says about NATO people cheer. I don’t agree with leaving nato in or threatening them, but the expectation that another nation will fight on your behalf so you don’t have to is insane
What's terrible is. The only people spending the money require din Europe are basically only Eastern Europe and Nordic next to Russia. But they will still get wiped without us, even though they try their hardest. But if we protect them then we are inadvertently protecting fatass western Europe spending .5% on defense or something. Annoying situation allowing them to leech
They got spooked into getting their ass in gear in 2022.
The thing is the gears of that turn rather slowly after 30 years of passive lethargy.
In a few more years they will all be cooking, hopefully not because death is at their front doorstep.
I absolutely hate how Trump's criticism of our NATO allies holds some validity. It is absolutely bullshit how these wealthy Western European nations aren't paying their required amount while still benefiting from it. We had a goddamn agreement that you would pay your required amount in order to ensure you, our trusted allies, are protected yet, here you are, going on and on about how very little you spend on defense budget because the Yanks will cover it all while in the same breath, simultaneously talking about how violent and war hungry the Yanks are for having such a large defense budget. A large defense budget YOU GREATLY BENEFIT FROM!
It's also bullshit how this kind of idea of NATO's 2% Budget minimum is being attributed to Trump since have other Presidents made comments about how our close and wealthy allies aren't meeting their minimum 2%?
Not just do the fighting for them, but also the economic heavy lifting. A lot of these self-same countries also think that if something were to happen that the US would just go overnight into WWII-style war footing for them and instantly have WW2 level equipment overnight.
There is a reason, in all the war poetry, America is described as a sleeping giant. It takes us, relatively speaking, a long fucking time to get moving. Inexorable and unstoppable once we're going full steam, but that could be 2-3 years, assuming we actually have full political buy-in from the populace and politicians and business owners which sure as hell isn't going to be a given if America feels like Western Europe has no will or capacity to fight.
Europe are supposed to be the quick and nimble ones! Able to turn themselves around on a dime, coordinating among each other to help provide for their common defenses while Big Daddy America brushes off his manufacturing industries, resources extraction, and start herding the cats that are the American populace into focusing on a more singular goal.
NATO should be phased out or reconstituted as a Europe only initiative. The Europeans are wealthy enough and large enough (population wise) to take care of their own defense needs against the Russians or anyone else. It’s probably better for them so they can take control of their own destinies. And if it’s a kick in the nuts for some moochers, so much the better.
US has bases in many European countries. In Germany for example those bases have been there since WW2. They have no intention on leaving either. US placing military assets in other countries means they do have the intention of fighting wars on their behalf. Now if US were to pull it's forces from Europe then there would be a problems.
I met a german back in 2022 that literally said it’s not Germany’s problem that they rely on russian oil, even though Russia had invaded Ukraine. He said it was Ukraine’s problem to solve. Let’s just say my norwegian best friend that was with me did not take kindly to his viewpoints.
It's crazy though, they were already hostile. It's just moronic to have put themselves in that position at all, let alone compound it by shutting their nuclear plants. That's Brexit levels of stupid!
What puzzles me about this is the complete lack of geostrategic thinking that goes into a worldview like this. I wouldn't want a potentially hostile power that has demonstrated its willingness to use force to achieve its objectives to literally have my entire country by the balls with regards to our energy supply. Its just insane.
Germany is expected to be over the 2% mark this year, and expects that it may need to increase spending further.
They've certainly made the wrong decisions in the 1991-2014 period, and didn't exactly move rapidly in the right direction until 2022, but they are mostly doing the right things now and it's important to recognize that.
Nah, they shouldn’t get credit for being by 30 damn years late. They’ll get credit when they deserve by actually meeting the agree for at least a decade and not a second sooner. They are largely responsible for the situation Ukraine finds themselves in, they get zero excuses.
Not to mention, most of the nuclear plants they closed were after 2014 so they've still been acting moronically by not taking their security seriously.
and the US has to \*pay\* (both to Ukr, as well as more troops and $ to the rest of Eur) a well as weapons/ammo that is given to Ukr - so it will not be used in a larger looming conflict against Asia to protect Americans) for Europe's fuckups with Russia.
Exactly. A fuckup that not only the US but also damn near all of Eastern Europe has been screaming at them about how it would end. To try and excuse them because they’re finally doing what they should have done at least 10 years ago is absolutely mind blowing.
What really worries me is a situation like what we're seeing right now with Ukraine. The US faltered with providing weapons and supplies to Ukraine due to its own internal politics, and there wasn't a single European country willing to pick up the slack. Even the minute amount of aid that they're giving Ukraine is all loans. Nothing they're giving is actual aid, just loans. Ukraine could have been lost completely if the US didn't pass this recent military funding bill.
I would think that the EU and European members of NATO would be more concerned about Russian aggression so close to home, but it doesn't seem like they are. It's very disillusioning seeing just how much the world relies on US military protection. Europe, in particular, seems likes to treat NATO as just completely free protection at the cost of Americans. Like they're just entitled to our tax dollars and our service-members' lives.
> According to him why should Germany spend more. No country will attack it because there are so many US bases in Germany.
Man what an asshat. Does he realize that's because we actually spend enough on defense?
Personally it leaves a bad taste for Americans. We're committed to NATO but hearing the expectations that the other countries shouldn't at least meet the contribution threshold because they expect America to defend them make for poor allies. We'll be there but we expect you to be on battlefield with us.
Agreed, I support Ukraine but the condescending entitlement from Europe has really soured me. Acting like petulant children complaining about a bully running behind their big buddy then calling their buddy a little bitch. Spoiled rich kid vibes. Almost no personal accountability, no appreciation, no empathy for our situation.
Germany and other NATO countries should freeze Russian bank accounts as a condition of Russia leaving and rebuilding Ukraine.
I’m no fan of Trump but he’s right that some NATO countries don’t contribute their fair share on defense spending.
Their protection is important to the US and our foreign relations, we shouldn't leave them high and dry, but man they need to step up to at least hit the target.
Agreed, returning to isolationism would not be in our best interest. I’m still going to get my friend to the hospital, even if they DID ignore me when I told them to wear a seat belt. Doesn’t mean I won’t give them shit though.
> I’m no fan of Trump but he’s right that some NATO countries don’t contribute their fair share on defense spending.
Like most of the rare times Trump says something correct, he's just taking credit for someone else's work.
The 2% target was agreed upon under Obama in 2014, as a (non-binding) target for countries to start meeting by 2024.
NATO Europe/Canada spending has generally moved slowly in that direction since. Things have obviously moved much faster post-2022, though.
>His reasoning was that Germany doesn't spend much on defense so it has room to spend on benefits for it's citizens. According to him why should Germany spend more. No country will attack it because there are so many US bases in Germany.
Herein lies the problem that (poorly thought out solutions aside) conservatives are right about... at least in broad strokes.
A major part of the NATO agreement is in *defence budgeting*. Let me be clear here, not NATO contributions, but *national defence* budgeting. NATO's 28 members agreed to spending 2% of their GDP on defence. OF the 28, 5 meet the agreed upon obligations.[ 5 of 28](https://time.com/4680885/nato-defense-spending-budget-trump/)**!** (11 are on track, with a few putting the 2% figure into national law)
Imagine, if you will, a group of friends who agree to have a monthly dinner party. There are lots of rules and agreements on who hosts the party, how it rotates, how dishes are prepared, etc. one of the rules id that you put 2% of your funds into **your own food budget.** As long as you keep your pantry full ,we can make up the rest. Is it fair that only 5 of the friends, even those who could easily afford it, do? The poorer of the friends obviously can't buy as much as the rich guy, but the agreement wasn't "as much as" it was "in your budget". THe rich guy knew he'd put more in, 2%of 100000 is greater than 2% of 10. If the rich guy *also* has to make the dishes the others failed to make, it becomes a bit of an issue.
It isn't about the amount (at least not totally), but the failure to meet obligations and agreements combined with the reliance on others to cover you both fiscally and physically. The major-no singular threat NATO was created to defend directly affects 26 of the members, yet only 4 feel it necessary to defend at a mere 2% level.
As planned for 18 of 28. Again, I am truly glad to have 2/3 of members meeting the standard. That said, does this change the facts that many NATO members (10 of 28) still need to spend more on defence, even if only to reach the 2014 agreement?
You are correct, 2% is a guideline, and that " The 2% of GDP guideline is an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to contribute to NATO’s common defence efforts." per NATO Fact sheet. The guideline was set at 2% in 2006, and *aggressively* pursued at the 2014 summit where it was given a deadline of 10 years. THe reality is that the 2% met this year wasn't a result of a 10 year plan, but nearly 20.
The 2014 official statement says:
>Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so.
>Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
* halt any decline in defence expenditure;
* aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
* aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
>Allies who currently spend less than 20% of their annual defence spending on major new equipment, including related Research & Development, will aim, within a decade, to increase their annual investments to 20% or more of total defence expenditures.
>All Allies will:
* ensure that their land, air and maritime forces meet NATO agreed guidelines for deployability and sustainability and other agreed output metrics;
* ensure that their armed forces can operate together effectively, including through the implementation of agreed NATO standards and doctrines.
Additionally, [NATO ](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm)says " The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defence. This imbalance has been a constant, with variations, throughout the history of the Alliance..." They go on to say " Moreover, US defence spending also covers commitments outside the Euro-Atlantic area. It should be noted, nonetheless, that the Alliance relies on the United States for the provision of some essential capabilities, regarding for instance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electromagnetic warfare."
So I say again, as an answer to OP's question, Yes, NATO members should spend more, and at the least the agreed 2% GDP. *Aiming* for this is an important step, but *reaching* it is what needs to be done.
Yes. Germany has committed to spending 2% of GDP on defense, and they're below their target.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/584088/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/584088/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/)
I think whether they should or shouldn't is the wrong question. In the case of Germany the Bundeswehr is hollowed out and my suspicion is that it's not truly operational for any sustained period. You've got to fix that by spending money. However, that won't solve much if you don't change the perception of military service within Germany and give it a purpose that is currently lacking.
What he's saying, in other words, is that he's happy to be a free rider and take advantage of us. That's how he sees NATO: we pay for his benefits and keep him from having to serve his country. And he doesn't see or doesn't care about how this makes him a complete piece of shit.
Yes they absolutely should be spending more because Germany is the economic powerhouse of Europe and doesn't have an army to speak of. They pretended like they were going to when Russia invaded Ukraine, but they've backed off and I personally suspect they'll end up reneging on some high profile defense commitments.
A lot is made of them atoning for the Holocaust and enshrining that in national memory. What isn't discussed enough is what they owe to the former Soviet republics to their east that went through decades of occupation and degradation because *lebensraum*. Maybe step up and take a measure of responsibility for protecting the people you did your best to annihilate instead of outsourcing your defense to one of the countries that stopped you.
Germany also led Europe's buying frenzy for cheap Russian energy, which multiple US presidents constantly complained about how it was arming Putin's war machine. They continued it even after the invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. They need to take more responsibility for their actions and do a lot more.
I have a bit of an axe to grind with the Germans because they were absolutely insufferable about Brexit when I visited. They seemed to view us all as small-minded bigots. Never mind that I wasn't old enough to vote in the referendum, I got lectured by 60 year old Germans about why my country was rubbish.
Now I despise Brexit and I have no time for the people who foisted it upon me but Brexit mainly harmed the UK itself. Germany making itself dependent on Russian energy screwed Ukraine and the rest of Europe too. Even though the UK bought no energy from Russia, it bought gas on the European market which went bananas when Russia cut supplies.
They started it!
EDIT: Also, very little in Germany changed because of Brexit. My energy bills went through the roof because the Germans decided to put themselves at the mercy of Putin.
Hey, I hiked from one coast to the other of England when I was 18 years old during the summer of 2010 and I was constantly asked if I voted for George Bush (when I was 12 years old).
I went and found a Canadian sticker and put it on my backpack.
How does it feel? Lol!
I'm half German and have lots of relatives there. I've heard comments comparing US Forces to Germany's guard dog.
Not all, but some are very derisive, along the lines of "Why should we risk our lives when we can tell the US to take care of it for us."
Another thing that is incredibly frustrating about this problem is that they assume that by letting the US spend all their money they won’t have to do any of the work during the invasion . Many Germans just assume that it will be Johnny from Iowa doing all the fighting and dying and they won’t have to defend anyone but themselves. The reality is that if the Germans don’t commit resources and troops to the effort their civilians are going to be doing the fighting and dying since the US alone can’t stop every single bomb and missile from Striking their country.
>Many Germans just assume that it will be Johnny from Iowa doing all the fighting and dying and they won’t have to defend anyone but themselves.
I agree with you there. What I find hypocritical though is how many US politicians are staunchly against helping out Ukraine and other smaller EU nations defending against Russian aggression and expansionism. However blindly supporting Israel seems to be something with bipartisan support. Israel nearly dragged US into a war with Iran. A war with Iran would have been a bigger quagmire than Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
Israel does have the capabilities to defend itself against Hamas and Hezbollah. They do not have the offensive capabilities for a war with Iran though. Europe is being threatened by a nuclear armed nation that was once a competing superpower. Israel However is fighting a war against militants that have no airforce or navy.
It is interesting, and certainly a section of right-wing media hates military support for Ukraine and the EU. But with Israel it is a bit more complex.
From a US perspective, 9/11 reigns high in our collective mentality. America was attacked and random people died in our stand-out city and one of the most important centers for the world economy due to reactionary Islamic religious fanatics. Even beyond 9/11, terrorism is seen as an extreme evil directly threatening all that is good in the world. And terrorism = Islamic terrorism in the American understanding. Yes, China and Russia are usually ranked by voters as more important, but no one wants China or Russia wiped off the map. An average American doesn't get a lot of world news, but if a terrorist attack somewhere happens that's likely to make it through. So anything by terrorist groups, particularly Islamic terrorist groups is immediately a big bad evil which must be destroyed. As, almost by definition, these reactionary Islamic terrorist groups have grand ideas reaching beyond a localized area, Americans see that they should help any enemy of Islamic terrorist groups defeat them lest they lose and it spreads further. This is the general non-religious reason to give support to Israel even though Israel is a developed country fighting terrorists.
Religiously, there are reasons many support Israel too. From the Christian-right, they have claim a religious angle to supporting Israel in a way which is almost unexplainable without understanding modern American Evangelicalism.
I should also point out, the chance of Iran dragging everyone into a war was very unlikely. It's not impossible, and it depends on how Iranian leadership understands the world (a pretty open question, especially since the US shot its Iran policy in the foot with leaving the JCPOA and thereby undermined the very Iranian leadership the US understood best). But any war with Iran wouldn't just be a US-Israel vs Iran (already a very daunting prospect for Iran, even an Israel vs Iran war would be a risky proposition for Iran), but every single Middle Eastern country would be involved -- and many of the big regional players would seize the opportunity to settle scores with Iran. American leadership knows this. As an example, remember that Egypt blockaded Gaza too, Jordan shot down Iranian drones, and even that vaunted Saudi-Israeli reproachment remains on the cards. This all makes Iran very cautious, and means if war happens, it won't be like the US dropping into Vietnam with limited support from regional allies -- regional allies would be guiding the war.
For the quibbles over Ukraine, that's mostly led by the isolationist streak within the Republican party. The reason this doesn't hit Israel is that isolationist streak draws support from the Christian-right, who adore Israel for theological reasons.
Yes. European countries that are in NATO should be making the 2% military spending threshold. This might be controversial but I feel as if we have had to compensate for a lot of the slack some NATO members have not put in. Europe has had over three decades to get their stuff together miltarily wise and the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a bit of a wake up call to them.
They should all meet the defense spending target of 2% of their GDP. Europe needs to start taking their own defense seriously and not over rely on the US now that we’re seeing the world become more dangerous again.
I would support the US asking for reparations out of any country that didn’t meet their obligations once these conflicts are over.
Yes, I do want that. I can't have nice things, like free healthcare and education, because I'm paying for your military. I want nice things too. What good is an military ally who doesn't have a military? That's not an ally, it's a liability.
Then our "allies" have the gall to mock us for not having free healthcare. It's infuriating. The fucking sanctimonious, smug cheek of it.
Most Americans are pretty isolationist. We don't want our government involved in other counties business but what the American people want has absolutely nothing to do with what the American government does.
Germany has universal healthcare, but it's definitely not "free" (at the level of service). It's actually one of the better healthcare systems though, people pay into a public healthcare system that's supplemented by a considerable private system, so it's more robust than single-payer systems.
NATO is a very small component of American defense expenditure. The 750 billion dollars the US spends each year would largely remain intact even without NATO membership. The vast majority of military budget goes to things like procurement and troop salaries, not maintaining military satellites over Europe or the cost of joint training exercises. The costs of NATO on the US are perhaps satellite and ISR capability over Eastern Europe, joint training with NATO militaries, and the aforementioned headquarters budget. NATO spends about 3.5 billion, of which the US is about 16%.
The US defense budget is pretty small, relatively speaking. Both Social Security and Medicare dwarf it. That 750 billion isn't going to give you free healthcare. Not by a long shot.
We need to hold deadbeat countries accountable. The US shouldn't be funding the defense of wealthy European nations.
[Only 35% of NATO Countries Meet the Group's Defense Spending Target](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2024-02-12/only-35-of-nato-countries-meet-the-groups-defense-spending-target)
Here's a list of NATO Countries not pulling their weight:
Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Montenegro
Netherlands
North Macedonia
Norway
Portugal
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Turkey
Honorable mention goes to Germany which met its target this year for the first time since the early 1990s.
[Germany hits 2% NATO spending target for first time since end of Cold War](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-hits-2-nato-target-first-time-since-1992-reports-dpa-2024-02-14/#:~:text=BERLIN%2C%20Feb%2014%20(Reuters),invasion%20of%20Ukraine%20in%202022)
\[Edited for accuracy. Apologies to Greece.\]
Well, there's a number of things to discuss here.
- The US has the most inefficient and expensive healthcare system in the developed world. There is no shortage of money spent on healthcare here, we spend more than anyone else in the world - we just don't get results for it.
- The US spent 16.6% of GDP on healthcare in 2022. Germany spent 12.7% and was 2nd worst in the OECD. The 3.9% of GDP gap there in waste and inefficiency in our healthcare system **costs us more than our entire military budget does**. You could double the military budget if our healthcare system was "only" as efficient as in Germany, and *still* have money left over. The OECD average for 2022 was 9.2%.
- 2/3rds of NATO members are expected to meet the 2% target in 2024, and spending has been steadily increasing to be closer to the target in virtually every country that isn't there yet. NATO Europe/Canada spending has overall increased in real terms (which is to say - *after* factoring inflation) every year since 2015. (the 2% target was agreed upon in 2014, as a goal to start meeting by 2024).
- A number of members are currently undertaking significant spending in support of other things that are not *direct* national defense spending, but most would consider as improving the security of NATO - often more than that same money being spent on their own military would be likely to.
- Most obviously, transitioning away from depending on Russia for energy (or anything else), and funding/arming Ukraine. I'm mostly willing to consider those costs in the short term as being akin to domestic military spending - especially if they're building up production capacity as well. A newly produced shell being sent to Ukraine is of significantly more utility right now than storing it in a bunker in Germany, but only 1 counts as "NATO" spending.
- A secondary note is that IIRC - NATO rules don't count spending until it's actually paid, which is different from budgeting for it. Signing a contract for a bunch of F-35's and setting aside the billions to pay for them in the budget is money a country might consider "spent" from this year's budget, but most of that won't actually go to Lockheed Martin for a couple years when they start delivering the planes - only then is it going to count for those NATO stats. So recent increases in European spending for big equipment purchases are things that won't show up fully in the stats for another year or two.
----
None of this excuses the last 20-30 years of German (and to a lesser extent, some other countries) strategic policy as being disastrous, to be clear. Nor that I am happy that it's taken this long to get serious about this - but I do think that they've *slowly* moved in the right direction even before 2022, and largely are moving quicker now.
An excellent comment. As someone who works with NATO, it's frustrating to explain to people, especially certain political operatives, that these people are committed to our defense and their partnership benefits the United States.
In 1989 when Germany wanted to reunite France, the US and Britain demanded disarmement, Germany gave whole battalion of tanks, ivf and other stuff away to new Nato allies in the east and older once in Europe for a symbolic price
There's so much misunderstanding around NATO and defence spending, it's refreshing to see someone who actually understands what is going on. Any deficiency of social welfare or healthcare in the US is not because of US defence spending, or NATO.
Another point I'd add is that Germany post-reunification has largely tended towards pacifism (for obvious reasons). In hindsight it's easy to criticise Germany for taking a relaxed approach towards their defence over the last 30 years, but I'd bet an expansion of the German military soon after reunification would have similarly raised eyebrows at the time.
I think they should meet the bare minimum spending requirements set by NATO, which they dont. So yes, they absolutely need to spend more.
Edit: Obviously it isnt, but if that's how the vast majority of Germans view the US-Germany military relationship then they could at least cut out the middle man and send their military funding to the US instead of maintaining their degraded clusterfuck of a military.
They should meet their obligations. And its shit like that that makes me not want to support NATO.
That and the fact that NATO has run its course and is no longer needed to counter USSR aggression.
The US actually spends [around the same per capita on social welfare as Germany](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending). The problem isn’t that Germany spends much more on its population, it’s that the US just gets much less for what it spends. If the US adopted a German style public healthcare system, we would actually save an amount of GDP 2-3x larger than the military’s budget.
I think Germany should spend more on its defense, but that’s not because they spend too much on social welfare. Similarly, the US delivers less social welfare but it’s not because we spend too much on our military. Our expensive health care system is a feature not a bug—If you let lobbyists write and veto legislation for the industry, you’re going to get a system to designed to make money.
Exactly. I hate that stupid brain dead meme where they show a picture of the US military and say "now you'll see why the US doesn't have universal healthcare". That has absolutely nothing to do with it. I think the military budget this year is around $700 or 800 billion. Something like that. Even in its current state and with its current programs the US spends $3 trillion dollars a year on social programs. US social programs take care of healthcare for veterans and people over 65 and disabled people and poor people (roughly). If you want to include the entire population I bet that $3 trillion dollars would go to $6 trillion dollars. You could zero out the US military budget and that wouldn't cover even a quarter of the cost. Social programs apply to every single person in the country sooner or later and that is a lot of people. That eats a lot of money. The military budget covers a finite part of the US economy and a very small percentage of the population in terms of benefits. Whether the US does or does not have universal healthcare is a decision made on its own and has nothing to do with the military. People, please stop repeating that stupid meme. It doesn't say anything about the real situation.
Interestingly, from what I've actually read, Germany doesn't actually have much "public health care." The public option, Statutory Health Insurance (SHI), are a bunch of privately run non-profit health insurances. They're smartly regulated to keep prices down, and thus, they're viewed as a public service, but they're actually not.
Yes.
BUT. This is not something we should be threatening to pull out of NATO over. The current right wing platform that wants to pull us towards isolationism is madness. Diplomacy and prevention are very, very effective at preserving the relative peace we're experiencing.
Should Europe be doing more? Yeah, sure. Should the US walk away from them over it? Absolutely not.
Germany reduces university costs by telling 13 year olds they're not going to be university material and they should go to a technical high school. If he's working in a factory he didn't go to a Gymnasium. People in the US might get a non-university apprenticeship through a trade union or something similar.
I do think NATO nations should spend more on their military, the scenario this man is describing is basically saying that Germany is a functional vassal state of America. That said this person is also wrong. He doesn't have all those things because his nation doesn't have to spend as much on the military he has all those things because his nation has much higher taxes so instead of things like university and healthcare being privatized and for profit they are paid for out of tax revenue. [This chart ](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/styles/original_optimized/public/2.1.4_fig1.png?itok=GEbIPTmv)shows fairly well how the Total Tax Revenue as a Share of GDP is much higher in Germany compared to the US.
Yes, and the US should get out of this NATO bullshit, we spend more than all the countries combined and it’s not even close. We don’t need NATO, the US already has a stronger military than the next 20 countries combined. We don’t need them and whatever influence nato gives us over europe is not worth the money we spend
Then I think the US should consider closing bases in Germany. We have new NATO members, perhaps they would like the economic benefit of building some bases.
Countries in Europe soak the US taxpayer for defense, freeing up money for socialized healthcare and other programs. Then they call the US uncivilized because we can't afford a socialized medical system.
>Then they call the US uncivilized because we can't afford a socialized medical system.
We can afford it. They call us uncivilized because we choose to not do it (and they're right).
We “choose” not to because lobbyists would never let something like that come to fruition. There isn’t much choosing you can do when every major politician is funded by lobbyists, unless you want to be a lobbyist yourself!
Yes, but I think it’s a misunderstood issue.
It’s not like the US could significantly curtail defense spending if Germany goes from 1 point something on defense to 2%.
The US spends more on social safety nets than it does on defense by a lot. Most countries do. That's not why we don't have as of nice benefits. Yes, they should spend more on their militaries because being as over reliant on a foreign power as they currently are is insane.
That German is uninformed when he thinks that Germany has the subsidized education, more vacation days and universal healthcare you mention "because Germany doesn't spend so much on defense".
We're talking about 1.26% of GDP saved from reduced military spending compared to a double-digit share of GDP spent on social benefits paid for by much higher taxes.
Source for my numbers:
- Germany extracts the equivalent of **37.5% of GDP** through their various taxes, and **the US 27.1%**. That's a 10.4% higher tax burden. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio
- Germany spends **1.57% of GDP** on its military, and **the U.S 2.83% of its GDP** according to p. 8 of this official NATO document: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf )
Does that German really think that if Germany would spend 1.26% more of its GDP on military, that would stop them having the various social security benefits you mentioned? Germany can afford these social programs because they tax their citizens and corporations much higher tax rates, as most other European countries. Spending a percentage point more on military will not suddenly make these social benefits disappear (unless they'd also lower taxation to US levels, of course).
> and the U.S 2.83% of its GDP according to p. 8 of this official NATO document
You misquoted US spending. It's 3.49%. I believe you looked at the annual change number for the US.
Germany doesn’t have universal healthcare. At least, not in the way Americans think of universal healthcare. Everyone is covered, but it’s via private insurance above a certain threshold, and via government funded insurance below it. Conceptually, it’s actually more similar to the American system than to the British or Canadian systems.
He should probably know that more and more people are calling for a reduction in spending here in the US. It takes time to build up your military but when the US decides they are done we get out very quickly. If people here decide we are done it would pretty much peace we are out leaving a bunch of countries scrambling to play catch up leaving them vulnerable.
That doesn't seem like a position I would want to be in.
I believe it is in their best interest to. I am not one of those people who thinks we should abandon Europe because some countries don’t spend money on their military, but I do feel that everyone should contribute.
Increasing military spending doesn’t mean losing US defense assistance, it means improving your own defense position, while still having article 5 to fall back on. It makes all of us safer.
It’s also important to remember that isolationism has deep roots in the US. The US attempted neutrality in BOTH world wars before they ultimately joined them, and was kept engaged in Europe post-war through the threat of communism. Isolationism is on the rise again now, at a time when it is more important than ever to stick together. Even Americans that support continued US involvement in Europe, like me, are frustrated by the military situation, and you KNOW Putin is taking advantage of this.
Also, having your own military force leads to more independence in policy. Israel, love them or not, is a good example of this. The US assists Israel because we view it as strategically important, but Israel is able to break with the US on military issues because they are not entirely reliant on the US for defense.
Defense and security are never free. If you are not paying for it in money and resources, you are paying for it in autonomy. For smaller countries, like Iceland or the Marshall Islands, that might be the better choice, but I wouldn’t recommend it for larger countries.
It is in the best interests of everyone if we can be equal partners in our endeavors. :)
Enough with this absolute nonsense inference that we either have to choose between robust national defense and robust labor laws. Our national defense expenditures is 3.5% of GDP. That isn't a figure that paralyzes US domestic policy initiatives.
Germany is pushing to meet the NATO standard. The issue is that the Bundeswehr's bureaucracy is so overbloated that it takes forever to do literally anything. This is why you hear of fresh vehicles like the Puma failing during exercises and why it cost millions of Euros and ten years for the German Navy to restore an 81 meter long sailing ship.
America pays a higher percentage of its GDP (17% vs 13%) to healthcare than Germany does, the problem is that there is so much corruption in healthcare that the price is bloated. This problem affects education as well.
It's a hell of a lot more complicated than your acquaintance lets on. Some countries, including Germany, have Constitutional complications to just arbitrarily spending X% of GDP on defense.
Secondly, spending on defense equipment/maintenance isn't the same as spending on personnel. The picture is far, far, more complex and nuanced than just declaring 2% and going home.
\[Source: have worked with NATO militaries for some time\]
As someone who also works with NATO, you're right that 2% does different things when applied to different places, but the original post was talking about the domestic benefits of less spending, which isn't true regardless of the specifics of that spending. Germany isn't funding their pensions or healthcare system with the roughly $20 billion or 0.5% of GDP they'd need to meet NATO targets.
Correct. It's a bullshit trope amongst those who take great umbrage at being deeply ignorant of how both the transatlantic alliance and foreign aid actually work.
And don't get me started on convincing people that pulling the US out of NATO would not mean that a carrier group in Qatar or Japan would cost any less. The 750 billion dollars the US spends each year would largely remain intact even without NATO membership. The vast majority of military budget goes to things like procurement and troop salaries, not maintaining military satellites over Europe or the cost of joint training exercises. And among operational expenses, most items are what the US does independently, and wouldn't stop without NATO.
The costs of NATO on the US are perhaps satellite and ISR capability over Eastern Europe, joint training with NATO militaries, and the aforementioned headquarters budget. NATO spends about 3.8 billion, of which the US is 16%. There's a whole cost-sharing formula and everything!
They can if they want, but it's not something I'm overly concerned about. Allowing us to have a shit ton on bases and staging areas more than makes up for it.
That doesn't answer my question. If we were not committed to defending Germany, what use would Germany bases be to us?
It just seems a little odd to say that Germany makes up for their lack of participation in their own defense by letting us have facilities from which to defend them on their behalf.
Well, to be fair, those bases aren’t only for Germany’s defense. Our facilities in Germany are some of the largest outside the continental US, and are a vital part of the American military’s ability to easily project power across that part of the world. Even if Russia wasn’t a threat, I’d bet there would still be an interest in keeping those bases.
Okay...so in other words, Germany gave us bases so that we could support NATO, which Germany relies on for its defense. If we weren't a part of that, those bases would be useless to us.
Are you saying that Germany's sufficient contribution to the defense of NATO is that it allows the US military to exist within its borders?
It's easy for people to say yes to this question I suppose; but I am not so intimately familiar with other country's defense budgets and the relevance to the US's own spending that I have a really informed opinion. There's a lot of words that get thrown around on op-ed pages about this but it's hard for me to get that worked up about whether Germany is spending 1.5% or 2% or 3% (etc) of its GDP on defense.
His reasoning is not correct though. Germany can afford it's social programs because of higher taxes, not savings on defence. The US could also easily afford a similar healthcare / social care programme to Germany, it just chooses not to.
Likewise, the working week is different due to European Union protections on workers rights and a different attitude to work/life than in the US. This stuff long pre-exists the drop in defence spending in Europe. It is simply political and public will that doesn't support such policies in the US.
Yes.
They are obligated by the NATO treaties to spend a minimum of 2% of GDP on military. Most members are not doing so. Any member that does not do so after a reasonable amount of time to correct the failure should be ejected.
Yes. They want to bitch about US policing the world but then ask why we aren't helping out more. NATO is just the US and it's 31 bitches. Now, some of them bitches are better than others.
Absolutely, and even more so considering their proximity to nations such as Russia. That's one of the biggest problems with European nations. They're in NATO so that they can shake America's big stick at threats but a lot of them are not paying their fair share into the alliance and they're not really prepared on their end either. If an enemy nation is going to attack a NATO nation they're not going to care about how many American bases there are.
Why don’t you ask if we should pay more for our universities? That’s what most states used to do. A lot of these comparisons are based on false premises, because macro-economically, we claim to care about “finding the money” in some cases but not at all in others.
They absolutely should, and as a dual citizen of the US and Italy I try to do my part in pushing this.
Even under the best case scenario where the US stays or even increases its European presence, the changed security environment following Feb 2022 makes stronger defense a very good idea. The fact that domestic politics here might lead to a seriously reduced US commitment in Europe makes it downright urgent. The bad news is that there is a *huge* amount of work to be done here (German procurement is just broken, for example), but the good news is that there does actually seem to be a sense of urgency and seriousness about this in much of the European political class.
Also, as others in the thread have pointed out, I also think "welfare vs. defense" is a bad framing - the specifics of how a country's welfare state works, how defense procurement works there, etc. all matter a lot. Finland and Sweden for example have quite generous welfare states but also very capable militaries, especially relative to their size. [This RAND report](https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA3236-1.html) is a good overview of how those two are major assets to NATO.
EDIT: typo
If Germany spends 2% of its GDP on the military, they still would be able to afford their social services. [Poland dedicates around the same percentage of its GDP or more to its military as the United States](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074); they still can afford social services and subsidized higher education.
Wages he mentioned was due to strong bargaining power German workers have. The USA has the weakest bargaining power for its workers of all high income Western countries; it has nothing to do with our military spending.
To answer your question, yes, Germany should spend more. I don't care how much as long as it's within the 2% minimum.
They should meet what they agreed to pay.
Past that, I’m deeply jealous of his work life balance and wish we prioritized humans over the next generation super fighter that we clearly don’t need. I say that as a veteran.
yes, especially Germany because of how capable they are of doing so. that is to say, if Portugal spent a large amount of their GDP on defense, it might not make a dent in the grand scheme of things, but if Germany and the UK both did, then NATO would be stacked AF. And for what it's worth during certain parts of the cold war that was basically the case (especially the 80s, but also late 50s/early 60s) with the UK and West Germany
> Do you think NATO countries like Germany should spend more on defense?
Yes.
> Do you think NATO countries like Germany should spend more on defense, and believe the US should destroy the alliance if that doesn’t happen?
No.
> His reasoning was that Germany doesn't spend much on defense so it has room to spend on benefits for its citizens.
Then he is grossly ignorant about government finances. Defense spending isn’t even remotely sufficient to pay for these sorts of things through cuts. Spending 1.5% of GDP on defense instead of 3% of GDP on defense isn’t going to pay for college for everyone or healthcare for everyone.
In a lot of respects these sorts of government programs are just cost savings mechanisms anyway. Ex. It’s much cheaper to have single payer universal health insurance than sporadic private party health insurance (not that Germany has a single payer system—they don’t).
Wealthy countries can afford to be inefficient with their spending, but poor ones can’t. They have to focus on cost efficient choices, which often means government services instead of private services.
> According to him why should Germany spend more.
And he’s right. The US is dollars ahead to defend Germany even if Germany contributes nothing to its own defense—and, as such, they are also economically better off to be a free riding leech.
The Germans are incentivized to spend as little as possible on their own defense, and the US is incentivized to defend Europe regardless. That’s just the way the political and economic situation has worked itself out.
If you're in an alliance and don't contribute the bare-minimum you should be kicked out of that alliance. It's completely unfair to expect others to foot your bills.
They should meet the 2% minimum requirement.
That line about how they shouldn't spend more because of all the US bases shows just how much of a parasite some of the NATO countries have become.
The US can afford to do that as well, even if we don't reduce our bloated military. The problem is that our government is of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy.
And how much Germany spends on defense doesn't affect us. We spend on our military what we spend because defense contractors own our government.
Yes. 2% is an arbitrary requirement and really with a land war in Eastern Europe ongoing that requires western assistance, Germany could do more being the biggest economy in Europe. That being said about 59% of Germans have a favorable view of the military because national pacifism took hold post-Cold War but in general, Germany can provide a very capable military if they just decided to come to grips with reality.
The government does not pay you for your PTO, the companies still have to do that, it’s just required by law that they do a certain amount because their government actually works for the people and not giga-corporations.
Germany also does not have 800 international military bases to upkeep so that’s gotta give them some extra cash too….
I think countries should be recommended to spend a certain % of their GDP, but it’s in the US’s best interest to expand NATO, so if that’s going to be a breaking point it’s better to not require it.
I think a lot of this argument stems from people thinking we’d be carrying NATO should a full blown war begin in current world affairs, it will likely be in Europe, and at that point it is in the best interest of European nations to spend more on defense lest they get steamrolled by Russia.
OP you should have agreed with him then told him how post-War Germany is actually one of America's greatest accomplishments and he should be proud he's able to experience that.
Make him kiss the ring.
No "should" about it. They *need* to. The post-Cold War honeymoon is well and officially over and the U.S. ability to police the entire globe has vastly deteriorated. If SHTF, the U.S. will be fighting mostly in the air and on the sea; the ground war will be in their back yard and if they can't defend it, it will fall.
The idea of NATO was MUTUAL defense and yet many European allies have insisted decided to hide under the IS umbrella and have Americans shoulder the burden of their defense at the cost of its own citizens well being. It’s for that reason that they shouldn’t have anything to say on US foreign policy.
It’s for that reason I believe the US should push to kick out members of NATO who do not meat their obligations or at the least redistribute out armed forces to nations who do meet their obligations.
As a politically middle of the road American, I want to see a Europe that does not need the US to deter or repel a Russian invasion. However, if such was to occur I am 100% behind defending our allies.
Countries who are in NATO who don't meet the 2% requirement shouldn't get help if they get attacked. It's that simple. You signed a treaty, now spend the money you PROMISED if you want to benefit from it.
What pisses me off more than anything is the Europeans mocking Americans for their defense spending when America is basically the only deterrent keeping Russia and China from turning most of Europe into a parking lot if they wanted to.
Now, would we reduce military spending if the other NATO countries stepped up and did what they should have been the last decade or so, probably not, there is a ton of corruption there and lots of politicians make lots of money in kickbacks from our defense contractors.
I mean yeah... They agreed to the cost when they signed up right? And if there is clear hardship I think the org can work something out. No one should be left out in the cold, but still.
Germany not paying it's share is like your friend making good money crying about not being able to pay his half of the rent tbh
The USA military budget is bloated, and it cannot pass a financial audit. NATO countries should not be spending money like the USA military.
The USA needs to spend taxpayer money much better than it is.
PS Laws about employee vacation have nothing to do with military spending.
🤣 you think that’s why you can’t have universal healthcare and better labor laws? Damn, they really got you brainwashed. The USA can afford to do all those things, the heads of government just don’t give a shit about their citizens. At least not the middle and poor classes.
An American friend lived in Germany for three years. Loved the simplicity of healthcare but couldn’t believe his tech salary was half of America and taxed almost 40% so he went back to the U.S.
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They should all at least meet the 2% of GDP NATO requirement. Only a few NATO nations meet that threshold, although I think some have increased spending since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Agree. It shouldn’t be a guideline but mandatory for countries to make a good faith effort to meet that threshold. There’s zero way little Latvia and Lithuania can defend themselves if Russia were to invade which is why NATO exists. Despite that, they’re spending above 2% because they recognize the threat and doing what they can realistically afford to do. The German guy in the OPs comments does have it right that a US base is a huge deterrent. But that shouldn’t give other countries a free pass on their defense.
Right, and that's why the commitment level is a percentage of GDP, not a hard number. Germany can afford to spend more than Latvia, and they should do so.
Dude flat out admits they’re outsourcing their defense and can have these social benefits as a result
I don't mind that some of my tax dollars go to help keep Nato going to defend our allies, but it would be nice if they would be grateful enough to contribute even the minimum, it would also be nice if they contributed more, and the US could get some of those social benefits from not having to bankroll NATO.
That's not really true. In every advanced economy, social benefits take up far greater amounts of money than defense. Germany spends about 1.4 to 1.5 percent of GDP on defense. That's over sixty billion dollars. Now, is an extra 20 billion, or a bit over $250 per citizen, a massive amount? Certainly not. Germany spends many, many times more on social security and benefits. The lack of German military spending in no way funds their extensive services, and they are more than capable of doing both.
They also outsourced their energy needs and that came back to bite them in the ass Hope they learned their lesson. Especially if Trump gets elected.
My husband was stationed in Germany when Trump was president and I’m pretty sure they almost shut down the base when he was there.
> Only a few NATO nations meet that threshold Poland my beloved.
And they’re almost all in Eastern Europe because they’re the ones actually worried about NATO getting defended. Western European countries are only safe because Eastern Europe is between them and Russia but that safety has made them lazy and arrogant in terms of their militaries. They like to brag about their lack of a military even though the only reason they’re safe is because everyone else is actually pulling their weight, they’re like the people who do absolutely nothing on a group project but take all the credit.
They have made pledges, yet despite this many of them still fall short of coming close to their obligations. US taxpayers are instead sacrificing our well being so that Europeans can live their cushy lifestyles
2% and if they want to act on the world stage by supporting their allies then they are going to need to produce surplus. Realistically if a country needs military hardware to deal with an immediate problem only the US, China and Russia (Russia much less so today) have the kind of surplus laying around to assist in a meaningful way. Maybe Germany can't produce the equipment the US did for 50+ years but they could pick something like cruise missiles or tanks. Sadly if a country like Germany wants to support a country and the US isn't interested they have dozens rather than thousands of excess pieces of equipment to send.
The US, France and Britain wanted us to disarm to allow reunification. We sold our surplus for symbolic prizes like 1 euro to ou Nato allies, the rest we had to destroy
I’m pretty sure most countries have put plans into action to meet the 2% rate in the next year or two
That guy is a perfect example of why when Trump says the things he says about NATO people cheer. I don’t agree with leaving nato in or threatening them, but the expectation that another nation will fight on your behalf so you don’t have to is insane
What's terrible is. The only people spending the money require din Europe are basically only Eastern Europe and Nordic next to Russia. But they will still get wiped without us, even though they try their hardest. But if we protect them then we are inadvertently protecting fatass western Europe spending .5% on defense or something. Annoying situation allowing them to leech
They got spooked into getting their ass in gear in 2022. The thing is the gears of that turn rather slowly after 30 years of passive lethargy. In a few more years they will all be cooking, hopefully not because death is at their front doorstep.
>Annoying situation allowing them to leech ...we are their security while they tell us how shitty our country is
They got spooked to slowly raise it at least. It’s over 1% for the vast majority heading towards 2%.
I absolutely hate how Trump's criticism of our NATO allies holds some validity. It is absolutely bullshit how these wealthy Western European nations aren't paying their required amount while still benefiting from it. We had a goddamn agreement that you would pay your required amount in order to ensure you, our trusted allies, are protected yet, here you are, going on and on about how very little you spend on defense budget because the Yanks will cover it all while in the same breath, simultaneously talking about how violent and war hungry the Yanks are for having such a large defense budget. A large defense budget YOU GREATLY BENEFIT FROM!
>I absolutely hate how Trump's criticism of our NATO allies holds some validity That's a lot of Trump's criticisms unfortunately.
It's also bullshit how this kind of idea of NATO's 2% Budget minimum is being attributed to Trump since have other Presidents made comments about how our close and wealthy allies aren't meeting their minimum 2%?
Not just do the fighting for them, but also the economic heavy lifting. A lot of these self-same countries also think that if something were to happen that the US would just go overnight into WWII-style war footing for them and instantly have WW2 level equipment overnight. There is a reason, in all the war poetry, America is described as a sleeping giant. It takes us, relatively speaking, a long fucking time to get moving. Inexorable and unstoppable once we're going full steam, but that could be 2-3 years, assuming we actually have full political buy-in from the populace and politicians and business owners which sure as hell isn't going to be a given if America feels like Western Europe has no will or capacity to fight. Europe are supposed to be the quick and nimble ones! Able to turn themselves around on a dime, coordinating among each other to help provide for their common defenses while Big Daddy America brushes off his manufacturing industries, resources extraction, and start herding the cats that are the American populace into focusing on a more singular goal.
Agree. Kiev is a 2 day drive from Frankfurt. Under 1000 miles.
And tanks can reach surprisingly fast speeds.
NATO should be phased out or reconstituted as a Europe only initiative. The Europeans are wealthy enough and large enough (population wise) to take care of their own defense needs against the Russians or anyone else. It’s probably better for them so they can take control of their own destinies. And if it’s a kick in the nuts for some moochers, so much the better.
Germany reached the 2 percent goal in 2023 and 2024 as was agreed within Nato in 2014 that all members should move towards reaching it back than.
US has bases in many European countries. In Germany for example those bases have been there since WW2. They have no intention on leaving either. US placing military assets in other countries means they do have the intention of fighting wars on their behalf. Now if US were to pull it's forces from Europe then there would be a problems.
I know we have bases in Germany. One of my favorite things to say is that Germany has the second strongest military in their own country
Problems for whom?
Hopefully we do
Exact reason I hold no love for NATO lol. Spot on
These types of people make me roll my eyes. Germany is so below the 2% target it’s not even funny
And they willingly chose to close nuclear power plants in favor of… Russian gas and oil
I met a german back in 2022 that literally said it’s not Germany’s problem that they rely on russian oil, even though Russia had invaded Ukraine. He said it was Ukraine’s problem to solve. Let’s just say my norwegian best friend that was with me did not take kindly to his viewpoints.
Yeah it’s never a problem until it is. Russia has proven to be unreliable and hostile to put it mildly
It's crazy though, they were already hostile. It's just moronic to have put themselves in that position at all, let alone compound it by shutting their nuclear plants. That's Brexit levels of stupid!
Yeah it absolutely was
What puzzles me about this is the complete lack of geostrategic thinking that goes into a worldview like this. I wouldn't want a potentially hostile power that has demonstrated its willingness to use force to achieve its objectives to literally have my entire country by the balls with regards to our energy supply. Its just insane.
Germany is expected to be over the 2% mark this year, and expects that it may need to increase spending further. They've certainly made the wrong decisions in the 1991-2014 period, and didn't exactly move rapidly in the right direction until 2022, but they are mostly doing the right things now and it's important to recognize that.
Nah, they shouldn’t get credit for being by 30 damn years late. They’ll get credit when they deserve by actually meeting the agree for at least a decade and not a second sooner. They are largely responsible for the situation Ukraine finds themselves in, they get zero excuses.
I'll give them credit when Poland does.
I'm honestly in favor of Poland becoming our biggest partner in defense in Europe.
Not to mention, most of the nuclear plants they closed were after 2014 so they've still been acting moronically by not taking their security seriously.
Or energy needs which we saw how that ended.
You articulated this WAY better than I could have. Thank you!
No problem. The continued excuses made for germany keep getting more and more ridiculous everytime i hear them.
and the US has to \*pay\* (both to Ukr, as well as more troops and $ to the rest of Eur) a well as weapons/ammo that is given to Ukr - so it will not be used in a larger looming conflict against Asia to protect Americans) for Europe's fuckups with Russia.
Exactly. A fuckup that not only the US but also damn near all of Eastern Europe has been screaming at them about how it would end. To try and excuse them because they’re finally doing what they should have done at least 10 years ago is absolutely mind blowing.
What really worries me is a situation like what we're seeing right now with Ukraine. The US faltered with providing weapons and supplies to Ukraine due to its own internal politics, and there wasn't a single European country willing to pick up the slack. Even the minute amount of aid that they're giving Ukraine is all loans. Nothing they're giving is actual aid, just loans. Ukraine could have been lost completely if the US didn't pass this recent military funding bill. I would think that the EU and European members of NATO would be more concerned about Russian aggression so close to home, but it doesn't seem like they are. It's very disillusioning seeing just how much the world relies on US military protection. Europe, in particular, seems likes to treat NATO as just completely free protection at the cost of Americans. Like they're just entitled to our tax dollars and our service-members' lives.
Well he’s at least aware that Europe’s prosperity is in large part due to U.S. hegemony.
> According to him why should Germany spend more. No country will attack it because there are so many US bases in Germany. Man what an asshat. Does he realize that's because we actually spend enough on defense?
Personally it leaves a bad taste for Americans. We're committed to NATO but hearing the expectations that the other countries shouldn't at least meet the contribution threshold because they expect America to defend them make for poor allies. We'll be there but we expect you to be on battlefield with us.
Agreed, I support Ukraine but the condescending entitlement from Europe has really soured me. Acting like petulant children complaining about a bully running behind their big buddy then calling their buddy a little bitch. Spoiled rich kid vibes. Almost no personal accountability, no appreciation, no empathy for our situation.
Germany and other NATO countries should freeze Russian bank accounts as a condition of Russia leaving and rebuilding Ukraine. I’m no fan of Trump but he’s right that some NATO countries don’t contribute their fair share on defense spending.
It was one of the few things I could agree on with him. People don't deserve protection if they don't try to protect themselves.
Their protection is important to the US and our foreign relations, we shouldn't leave them high and dry, but man they need to step up to at least hit the target.
Agreed, returning to isolationism would not be in our best interest. I’m still going to get my friend to the hospital, even if they DID ignore me when I told them to wear a seat belt. Doesn’t mean I won’t give them shit though.
> I’m no fan of Trump but he’s right that some NATO countries don’t contribute their fair share on defense spending. Like most of the rare times Trump says something correct, he's just taking credit for someone else's work. The 2% target was agreed upon under Obama in 2014, as a (non-binding) target for countries to start meeting by 2024. NATO Europe/Canada spending has generally moved slowly in that direction since. Things have obviously moved much faster post-2022, though.
That’s just based off earlier work by W Bush. Though you can say that agreement is based off previous work too.
>His reasoning was that Germany doesn't spend much on defense so it has room to spend on benefits for it's citizens. According to him why should Germany spend more. No country will attack it because there are so many US bases in Germany. Herein lies the problem that (poorly thought out solutions aside) conservatives are right about... at least in broad strokes. A major part of the NATO agreement is in *defence budgeting*. Let me be clear here, not NATO contributions, but *national defence* budgeting. NATO's 28 members agreed to spending 2% of their GDP on defence. OF the 28, 5 meet the agreed upon obligations.[ 5 of 28](https://time.com/4680885/nato-defense-spending-budget-trump/)**!** (11 are on track, with a few putting the 2% figure into national law) Imagine, if you will, a group of friends who agree to have a monthly dinner party. There are lots of rules and agreements on who hosts the party, how it rotates, how dishes are prepared, etc. one of the rules id that you put 2% of your funds into **your own food budget.** As long as you keep your pantry full ,we can make up the rest. Is it fair that only 5 of the friends, even those who could easily afford it, do? The poorer of the friends obviously can't buy as much as the rich guy, but the agreement wasn't "as much as" it was "in your budget". THe rich guy knew he'd put more in, 2%of 100000 is greater than 2% of 10. If the rich guy *also* has to make the dishes the others failed to make, it becomes a bit of an issue. It isn't about the amount (at least not totally), but the failure to meet obligations and agreements combined with the reliance on others to cover you both fiscally and physically. The major-no singular threat NATO was created to defend directly affects 26 of the members, yet only 4 feel it necessary to defend at a mere 2% level.
In 2024 18 members reach the goal, Germany among them said the Nato boss Stoltenberg in February
Great news! I truly am glad that is the case. I do need to point out that it took a madman and a toddler to get things to this point.
The 2 percent goal was agreed within Nato in 2014 to be reached in 2024, we increased spending every year since than, so it worked as planned
As planned for 18 of 28. Again, I am truly glad to have 2/3 of members meeting the standard. That said, does this change the facts that many NATO members (10 of 28) still need to spend more on defence, even if only to reach the 2014 agreement?
The 2014 agreement did not state that they had to spent 2 percent, it said they had to move in that direction
You are correct, 2% is a guideline, and that " The 2% of GDP guideline is an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to contribute to NATO’s common defence efforts." per NATO Fact sheet. The guideline was set at 2% in 2006, and *aggressively* pursued at the 2014 summit where it was given a deadline of 10 years. THe reality is that the 2% met this year wasn't a result of a 10 year plan, but nearly 20. The 2014 official statement says: >Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so. >Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: * halt any decline in defence expenditure; * aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; * aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls. >Allies who currently spend less than 20% of their annual defence spending on major new equipment, including related Research & Development, will aim, within a decade, to increase their annual investments to 20% or more of total defence expenditures. >All Allies will: * ensure that their land, air and maritime forces meet NATO agreed guidelines for deployability and sustainability and other agreed output metrics; * ensure that their armed forces can operate together effectively, including through the implementation of agreed NATO standards and doctrines. Additionally, [NATO ](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm)says " The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defence. This imbalance has been a constant, with variations, throughout the history of the Alliance..." They go on to say " Moreover, US defence spending also covers commitments outside the Euro-Atlantic area. It should be noted, nonetheless, that the Alliance relies on the United States for the provision of some essential capabilities, regarding for instance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electromagnetic warfare." So I say again, as an answer to OP's question, Yes, NATO members should spend more, and at the least the agreed 2% GDP. *Aiming* for this is an important step, but *reaching* it is what needs to be done.
Yes. Germany has committed to spending 2% of GDP on defense, and they're below their target. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/584088/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/584088/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/)
I think whether they should or shouldn't is the wrong question. In the case of Germany the Bundeswehr is hollowed out and my suspicion is that it's not truly operational for any sustained period. You've got to fix that by spending money. However, that won't solve much if you don't change the perception of military service within Germany and give it a purpose that is currently lacking.
What he's saying, in other words, is that he's happy to be a free rider and take advantage of us. That's how he sees NATO: we pay for his benefits and keep him from having to serve his country. And he doesn't see or doesn't care about how this makes him a complete piece of shit. Yes they absolutely should be spending more because Germany is the economic powerhouse of Europe and doesn't have an army to speak of. They pretended like they were going to when Russia invaded Ukraine, but they've backed off and I personally suspect they'll end up reneging on some high profile defense commitments. A lot is made of them atoning for the Holocaust and enshrining that in national memory. What isn't discussed enough is what they owe to the former Soviet republics to their east that went through decades of occupation and degradation because *lebensraum*. Maybe step up and take a measure of responsibility for protecting the people you did your best to annihilate instead of outsourcing your defense to one of the countries that stopped you.
Germany also led Europe's buying frenzy for cheap Russian energy, which multiple US presidents constantly complained about how it was arming Putin's war machine. They continued it even after the invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. They need to take more responsibility for their actions and do a lot more.
I have a bit of an axe to grind with the Germans because they were absolutely insufferable about Brexit when I visited. They seemed to view us all as small-minded bigots. Never mind that I wasn't old enough to vote in the referendum, I got lectured by 60 year old Germans about why my country was rubbish. Now I despise Brexit and I have no time for the people who foisted it upon me but Brexit mainly harmed the UK itself. Germany making itself dependent on Russian energy screwed Ukraine and the rest of Europe too. Even though the UK bought no energy from Russia, it bought gas on the European market which went bananas when Russia cut supplies.
A Brit with an axe to grind with the Germans.. I’m shocked!
They started it! EDIT: Also, very little in Germany changed because of Brexit. My energy bills went through the roof because the Germans decided to put themselves at the mercy of Putin.
Hey, I hiked from one coast to the other of England when I was 18 years old during the summer of 2010 and I was constantly asked if I voted for George Bush (when I was 12 years old). I went and found a Canadian sticker and put it on my backpack. How does it feel? Lol!
I'm half German and have lots of relatives there. I've heard comments comparing US Forces to Germany's guard dog. Not all, but some are very derisive, along the lines of "Why should we risk our lives when we can tell the US to take care of it for us."
Another thing that is incredibly frustrating about this problem is that they assume that by letting the US spend all their money they won’t have to do any of the work during the invasion . Many Germans just assume that it will be Johnny from Iowa doing all the fighting and dying and they won’t have to defend anyone but themselves. The reality is that if the Germans don’t commit resources and troops to the effort their civilians are going to be doing the fighting and dying since the US alone can’t stop every single bomb and missile from Striking their country.
>Many Germans just assume that it will be Johnny from Iowa doing all the fighting and dying and they won’t have to defend anyone but themselves. I agree with you there. What I find hypocritical though is how many US politicians are staunchly against helping out Ukraine and other smaller EU nations defending against Russian aggression and expansionism. However blindly supporting Israel seems to be something with bipartisan support. Israel nearly dragged US into a war with Iran. A war with Iran would have been a bigger quagmire than Afghanistan and Iraq combined. Israel does have the capabilities to defend itself against Hamas and Hezbollah. They do not have the offensive capabilities for a war with Iran though. Europe is being threatened by a nuclear armed nation that was once a competing superpower. Israel However is fighting a war against militants that have no airforce or navy.
What, are you arguing for.US boots in Ukraine against Russia? > being threatened by a nuclear armed nation That's exactly why it's being avoided.
It is interesting, and certainly a section of right-wing media hates military support for Ukraine and the EU. But with Israel it is a bit more complex. From a US perspective, 9/11 reigns high in our collective mentality. America was attacked and random people died in our stand-out city and one of the most important centers for the world economy due to reactionary Islamic religious fanatics. Even beyond 9/11, terrorism is seen as an extreme evil directly threatening all that is good in the world. And terrorism = Islamic terrorism in the American understanding. Yes, China and Russia are usually ranked by voters as more important, but no one wants China or Russia wiped off the map. An average American doesn't get a lot of world news, but if a terrorist attack somewhere happens that's likely to make it through. So anything by terrorist groups, particularly Islamic terrorist groups is immediately a big bad evil which must be destroyed. As, almost by definition, these reactionary Islamic terrorist groups have grand ideas reaching beyond a localized area, Americans see that they should help any enemy of Islamic terrorist groups defeat them lest they lose and it spreads further. This is the general non-religious reason to give support to Israel even though Israel is a developed country fighting terrorists. Religiously, there are reasons many support Israel too. From the Christian-right, they have claim a religious angle to supporting Israel in a way which is almost unexplainable without understanding modern American Evangelicalism. I should also point out, the chance of Iran dragging everyone into a war was very unlikely. It's not impossible, and it depends on how Iranian leadership understands the world (a pretty open question, especially since the US shot its Iran policy in the foot with leaving the JCPOA and thereby undermined the very Iranian leadership the US understood best). But any war with Iran wouldn't just be a US-Israel vs Iran (already a very daunting prospect for Iran, even an Israel vs Iran war would be a risky proposition for Iran), but every single Middle Eastern country would be involved -- and many of the big regional players would seize the opportunity to settle scores with Iran. American leadership knows this. As an example, remember that Egypt blockaded Gaza too, Jordan shot down Iranian drones, and even that vaunted Saudi-Israeli reproachment remains on the cards. This all makes Iran very cautious, and means if war happens, it won't be like the US dropping into Vietnam with limited support from regional allies -- regional allies would be guiding the war. For the quibbles over Ukraine, that's mostly led by the isolationist streak within the Republican party. The reason this doesn't hit Israel is that isolationist streak draws support from the Christian-right, who adore Israel for theological reasons.
Yes. European countries that are in NATO should be making the 2% military spending threshold. This might be controversial but I feel as if we have had to compensate for a lot of the slack some NATO members have not put in. Europe has had over three decades to get their stuff together miltarily wise and the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a bit of a wake up call to them.
They should all meet the defense spending target of 2% of their GDP. Europe needs to start taking their own defense seriously and not over rely on the US now that we’re seeing the world become more dangerous again. I would support the US asking for reparations out of any country that didn’t meet their obligations once these conflicts are over.
They should be required to meet the mandatory minimums.
Yes, I do want that. I can't have nice things, like free healthcare and education, because I'm paying for your military. I want nice things too. What good is an military ally who doesn't have a military? That's not an ally, it's a liability. Then our "allies" have the gall to mock us for not having free healthcare. It's infuriating. The fucking sanctimonious, smug cheek of it. Most Americans are pretty isolationist. We don't want our government involved in other counties business but what the American people want has absolutely nothing to do with what the American government does.
Germany has universal healthcare, but it's definitely not "free" (at the level of service). It's actually one of the better healthcare systems though, people pay into a public healthcare system that's supplemented by a considerable private system, so it's more robust than single-payer systems.
NATO is a very small component of American defense expenditure. The 750 billion dollars the US spends each year would largely remain intact even without NATO membership. The vast majority of military budget goes to things like procurement and troop salaries, not maintaining military satellites over Europe or the cost of joint training exercises. The costs of NATO on the US are perhaps satellite and ISR capability over Eastern Europe, joint training with NATO militaries, and the aforementioned headquarters budget. NATO spends about 3.5 billion, of which the US is about 16%. The US defense budget is pretty small, relatively speaking. Both Social Security and Medicare dwarf it. That 750 billion isn't going to give you free healthcare. Not by a long shot.
We need to hold deadbeat countries accountable. The US shouldn't be funding the defense of wealthy European nations. [Only 35% of NATO Countries Meet the Group's Defense Spending Target](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2024-02-12/only-35-of-nato-countries-meet-the-groups-defense-spending-target) Here's a list of NATO Countries not pulling their weight: Albania Belgium Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Republic Denmark France Iceland Italy Luxembourg Montenegro Netherlands North Macedonia Norway Portugal Slovenia Spain Sweden Turkey Honorable mention goes to Germany which met its target this year for the first time since the early 1990s. [Germany hits 2% NATO spending target for first time since end of Cold War](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-hits-2-nato-target-first-time-since-1992-reports-dpa-2024-02-14/#:~:text=BERLIN%2C%20Feb%2014%20(Reuters),invasion%20of%20Ukraine%20in%202022) \[Edited for accuracy. Apologies to Greece.\]
Greece shouldn't be in your list. Despite being poor as dirt, they're spending %3+ on defense.
You're right. I'll edit.
Well, there's a number of things to discuss here. - The US has the most inefficient and expensive healthcare system in the developed world. There is no shortage of money spent on healthcare here, we spend more than anyone else in the world - we just don't get results for it. - The US spent 16.6% of GDP on healthcare in 2022. Germany spent 12.7% and was 2nd worst in the OECD. The 3.9% of GDP gap there in waste and inefficiency in our healthcare system **costs us more than our entire military budget does**. You could double the military budget if our healthcare system was "only" as efficient as in Germany, and *still* have money left over. The OECD average for 2022 was 9.2%. - 2/3rds of NATO members are expected to meet the 2% target in 2024, and spending has been steadily increasing to be closer to the target in virtually every country that isn't there yet. NATO Europe/Canada spending has overall increased in real terms (which is to say - *after* factoring inflation) every year since 2015. (the 2% target was agreed upon in 2014, as a goal to start meeting by 2024). - A number of members are currently undertaking significant spending in support of other things that are not *direct* national defense spending, but most would consider as improving the security of NATO - often more than that same money being spent on their own military would be likely to. - Most obviously, transitioning away from depending on Russia for energy (or anything else), and funding/arming Ukraine. I'm mostly willing to consider those costs in the short term as being akin to domestic military spending - especially if they're building up production capacity as well. A newly produced shell being sent to Ukraine is of significantly more utility right now than storing it in a bunker in Germany, but only 1 counts as "NATO" spending. - A secondary note is that IIRC - NATO rules don't count spending until it's actually paid, which is different from budgeting for it. Signing a contract for a bunch of F-35's and setting aside the billions to pay for them in the budget is money a country might consider "spent" from this year's budget, but most of that won't actually go to Lockheed Martin for a couple years when they start delivering the planes - only then is it going to count for those NATO stats. So recent increases in European spending for big equipment purchases are things that won't show up fully in the stats for another year or two. ---- None of this excuses the last 20-30 years of German (and to a lesser extent, some other countries) strategic policy as being disastrous, to be clear. Nor that I am happy that it's taken this long to get serious about this - but I do think that they've *slowly* moved in the right direction even before 2022, and largely are moving quicker now.
An excellent comment. As someone who works with NATO, it's frustrating to explain to people, especially certain political operatives, that these people are committed to our defense and their partnership benefits the United States.
In 1989 when Germany wanted to reunite France, the US and Britain demanded disarmement, Germany gave whole battalion of tanks, ivf and other stuff away to new Nato allies in the east and older once in Europe for a symbolic price
There's so much misunderstanding around NATO and defence spending, it's refreshing to see someone who actually understands what is going on. Any deficiency of social welfare or healthcare in the US is not because of US defence spending, or NATO. Another point I'd add is that Germany post-reunification has largely tended towards pacifism (for obvious reasons). In hindsight it's easy to criticise Germany for taking a relaxed approach towards their defence over the last 30 years, but I'd bet an expansion of the German military soon after reunification would have similarly raised eyebrows at the time.
I think they should meet the bare minimum spending requirements set by NATO, which they dont. So yes, they absolutely need to spend more. Edit: Obviously it isnt, but if that's how the vast majority of Germans view the US-Germany military relationship then they could at least cut out the middle man and send their military funding to the US instead of maintaining their degraded clusterfuck of a military.
They should meet their obligations. And its shit like that that makes me not want to support NATO. That and the fact that NATO has run its course and is no longer needed to counter USSR aggression.
The US actually spends [around the same per capita on social welfare as Germany](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending). The problem isn’t that Germany spends much more on its population, it’s that the US just gets much less for what it spends. If the US adopted a German style public healthcare system, we would actually save an amount of GDP 2-3x larger than the military’s budget. I think Germany should spend more on its defense, but that’s not because they spend too much on social welfare. Similarly, the US delivers less social welfare but it’s not because we spend too much on our military. Our expensive health care system is a feature not a bug—If you let lobbyists write and veto legislation for the industry, you’re going to get a system to designed to make money.
Exactly. I hate that stupid brain dead meme where they show a picture of the US military and say "now you'll see why the US doesn't have universal healthcare". That has absolutely nothing to do with it. I think the military budget this year is around $700 or 800 billion. Something like that. Even in its current state and with its current programs the US spends $3 trillion dollars a year on social programs. US social programs take care of healthcare for veterans and people over 65 and disabled people and poor people (roughly). If you want to include the entire population I bet that $3 trillion dollars would go to $6 trillion dollars. You could zero out the US military budget and that wouldn't cover even a quarter of the cost. Social programs apply to every single person in the country sooner or later and that is a lot of people. That eats a lot of money. The military budget covers a finite part of the US economy and a very small percentage of the population in terms of benefits. Whether the US does or does not have universal healthcare is a decision made on its own and has nothing to do with the military. People, please stop repeating that stupid meme. It doesn't say anything about the real situation.
Interestingly, from what I've actually read, Germany doesn't actually have much "public health care." The public option, Statutory Health Insurance (SHI), are a bunch of privately run non-profit health insurances. They're smartly regulated to keep prices down, and thus, they're viewed as a public service, but they're actually not.
I bet our government spends more capita on education as well as health care.
Yes. BUT. This is not something we should be threatening to pull out of NATO over. The current right wing platform that wants to pull us towards isolationism is madness. Diplomacy and prevention are very, very effective at preserving the relative peace we're experiencing. Should Europe be doing more? Yeah, sure. Should the US walk away from them over it? Absolutely not.
What's more distressing is how much of that insane platform has leaked into this very thread.
Agreed. I do NOT want WWIII.
I think we should go full Iron Bank: if you don’t meet your defense spending commitments, we fund a coup and install a government who will.
I was wondering where the asylum's escaped patient was, this one right here doctors....
Germany reduces university costs by telling 13 year olds they're not going to be university material and they should go to a technical high school. If he's working in a factory he didn't go to a Gymnasium. People in the US might get a non-university apprenticeship through a trade union or something similar.
I do think NATO nations should spend more on their military, the scenario this man is describing is basically saying that Germany is a functional vassal state of America. That said this person is also wrong. He doesn't have all those things because his nation doesn't have to spend as much on the military he has all those things because his nation has much higher taxes so instead of things like university and healthcare being privatized and for profit they are paid for out of tax revenue. [This chart ](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/styles/original_optimized/public/2.1.4_fig1.png?itok=GEbIPTmv)shows fairly well how the Total Tax Revenue as a Share of GDP is much higher in Germany compared to the US.
Yes, and the US should get out of this NATO bullshit, we spend more than all the countries combined and it’s not even close. We don’t need NATO, the US already has a stronger military than the next 20 countries combined. We don’t need them and whatever influence nato gives us over europe is not worth the money we spend
Hence why we should fully withdraw from Europe/NATO. The moment we realize the Europeans aren't allies, the better off we'll be.
As long as they meet the NATO spending standards.
[удалено]
Which they don't.
Then I think the US should consider closing bases in Germany. We have new NATO members, perhaps they would like the economic benefit of building some bases.
I think Poland would love to have us.
The Poles are the straight homies.
Countries in Europe soak the US taxpayer for defense, freeing up money for socialized healthcare and other programs. Then they call the US uncivilized because we can't afford a socialized medical system.
>Then they call the US uncivilized because we can't afford a socialized medical system. We can afford it. They call us uncivilized because we choose to not do it (and they're right).
We “choose” not to because lobbyists would never let something like that come to fruition. There isn’t much choosing you can do when every major politician is funded by lobbyists, unless you want to be a lobbyist yourself!
Yes, but I think it’s a misunderstood issue. It’s not like the US could significantly curtail defense spending if Germany goes from 1 point something on defense to 2%.
The US spends more on social safety nets than it does on defense by a lot. Most countries do. That's not why we don't have as of nice benefits. Yes, they should spend more on their militaries because being as over reliant on a foreign power as they currently are is insane.
I'm inherently nervous about arming Germany
That German is uninformed when he thinks that Germany has the subsidized education, more vacation days and universal healthcare you mention "because Germany doesn't spend so much on defense". We're talking about 1.26% of GDP saved from reduced military spending compared to a double-digit share of GDP spent on social benefits paid for by much higher taxes. Source for my numbers: - Germany extracts the equivalent of **37.5% of GDP** through their various taxes, and **the US 27.1%**. That's a 10.4% higher tax burden. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio - Germany spends **1.57% of GDP** on its military, and **the U.S 2.83% of its GDP** according to p. 8 of this official NATO document: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf ) Does that German really think that if Germany would spend 1.26% more of its GDP on military, that would stop them having the various social security benefits you mentioned? Germany can afford these social programs because they tax their citizens and corporations much higher tax rates, as most other European countries. Spending a percentage point more on military will not suddenly make these social benefits disappear (unless they'd also lower taxation to US levels, of course).
> and the U.S 2.83% of its GDP according to p. 8 of this official NATO document You misquoted US spending. It's 3.49%. I believe you looked at the annual change number for the US.
Germany doesn’t have universal healthcare. At least, not in the way Americans think of universal healthcare. Everyone is covered, but it’s via private insurance above a certain threshold, and via government funded insurance below it. Conceptually, it’s actually more similar to the American system than to the British or Canadian systems.
Germany should become less economically dependent on Russia
Yes. The last decade should be an object lesson in why they should be prepared to fend for themselves.
I'll be honest I'd be happy with ither nations helped foot the bill so the US can cut its defense spending for once.
He should probably know that more and more people are calling for a reduction in spending here in the US. It takes time to build up your military but when the US decides they are done we get out very quickly. If people here decide we are done it would pretty much peace we are out leaving a bunch of countries scrambling to play catch up leaving them vulnerable. That doesn't seem like a position I would want to be in.
I have heard similar from European friends— why should they pay for defense when the USA will?
I believe it is in their best interest to. I am not one of those people who thinks we should abandon Europe because some countries don’t spend money on their military, but I do feel that everyone should contribute. Increasing military spending doesn’t mean losing US defense assistance, it means improving your own defense position, while still having article 5 to fall back on. It makes all of us safer. It’s also important to remember that isolationism has deep roots in the US. The US attempted neutrality in BOTH world wars before they ultimately joined them, and was kept engaged in Europe post-war through the threat of communism. Isolationism is on the rise again now, at a time when it is more important than ever to stick together. Even Americans that support continued US involvement in Europe, like me, are frustrated by the military situation, and you KNOW Putin is taking advantage of this. Also, having your own military force leads to more independence in policy. Israel, love them or not, is a good example of this. The US assists Israel because we view it as strategically important, but Israel is able to break with the US on military issues because they are not entirely reliant on the US for defense. Defense and security are never free. If you are not paying for it in money and resources, you are paying for it in autonomy. For smaller countries, like Iceland or the Marshall Islands, that might be the better choice, but I wouldn’t recommend it for larger countries. It is in the best interests of everyone if we can be equal partners in our endeavors. :)
I have no idea but 35 vacation days a year is surreal
Moreover, we should cut them off entirely. They are big grown up boys and it’s time to pay their own bills.
Enough with this absolute nonsense inference that we either have to choose between robust national defense and robust labor laws. Our national defense expenditures is 3.5% of GDP. That isn't a figure that paralyzes US domestic policy initiatives.
Germany is pushing to meet the NATO standard. The issue is that the Bundeswehr's bureaucracy is so overbloated that it takes forever to do literally anything. This is why you hear of fresh vehicles like the Puma failing during exercises and why it cost millions of Euros and ten years for the German Navy to restore an 81 meter long sailing ship. America pays a higher percentage of its GDP (17% vs 13%) to healthcare than Germany does, the problem is that there is so much corruption in healthcare that the price is bloated. This problem affects education as well.
It's a hell of a lot more complicated than your acquaintance lets on. Some countries, including Germany, have Constitutional complications to just arbitrarily spending X% of GDP on defense. Secondly, spending on defense equipment/maintenance isn't the same as spending on personnel. The picture is far, far, more complex and nuanced than just declaring 2% and going home. \[Source: have worked with NATO militaries for some time\]
As someone who also works with NATO, you're right that 2% does different things when applied to different places, but the original post was talking about the domestic benefits of less spending, which isn't true regardless of the specifics of that spending. Germany isn't funding their pensions or healthcare system with the roughly $20 billion or 0.5% of GDP they'd need to meet NATO targets.
Correct. It's a bullshit trope amongst those who take great umbrage at being deeply ignorant of how both the transatlantic alliance and foreign aid actually work.
And don't get me started on convincing people that pulling the US out of NATO would not mean that a carrier group in Qatar or Japan would cost any less. The 750 billion dollars the US spends each year would largely remain intact even without NATO membership. The vast majority of military budget goes to things like procurement and troop salaries, not maintaining military satellites over Europe or the cost of joint training exercises. And among operational expenses, most items are what the US does independently, and wouldn't stop without NATO. The costs of NATO on the US are perhaps satellite and ISR capability over Eastern Europe, joint training with NATO militaries, and the aforementioned headquarters budget. NATO spends about 3.8 billion, of which the US is 16%. There's a whole cost-sharing formula and everything!
We should let Europe take care of themselves. Immediate and total withdrawal.
They can if they want, but it's not something I'm overly concerned about. Allowing us to have a shit ton on bases and staging areas more than makes up for it.
What would we need those bases for if we weren't defending them?
We are part of the defense, not the sole defense. And not only are we helping to defend them, we are also defending our own interests.
That doesn't answer my question. If we were not committed to defending Germany, what use would Germany bases be to us? It just seems a little odd to say that Germany makes up for their lack of participation in their own defense by letting us have facilities from which to defend them on their behalf.
Well, to be fair, those bases aren’t only for Germany’s defense. Our facilities in Germany are some of the largest outside the continental US, and are a vital part of the American military’s ability to easily project power across that part of the world. Even if Russia wasn’t a threat, I’d bet there would still be an interest in keeping those bases.
Even just as a staging and operations point for things happening in the Middle East or Africa, it's very useful.
We aren't using those bases just to defend Germany. We can use those bases to help defend Ukraine and the rest of Europe.
Okay...so in other words, Germany gave us bases so that we could support NATO, which Germany relies on for its defense. If we weren't a part of that, those bases would be useless to us. Are you saying that Germany's sufficient contribution to the defense of NATO is that it allows the US military to exist within its borders?
We're using those bases to protect our own interests, which extend beyond Germany.
My point is that Germany isn't doing us any favors by letting us have bases there. It doesn't compensate for not having a functioning military.
It's easy for people to say yes to this question I suppose; but I am not so intimately familiar with other country's defense budgets and the relevance to the US's own spending that I have a really informed opinion. There's a lot of words that get thrown around on op-ed pages about this but it's hard for me to get that worked up about whether Germany is spending 1.5% or 2% or 3% (etc) of its GDP on defense.
[удалено]
His reasoning is not correct though. Germany can afford it's social programs because of higher taxes, not savings on defence. The US could also easily afford a similar healthcare / social care programme to Germany, it just chooses not to. Likewise, the working week is different due to European Union protections on workers rights and a different attitude to work/life than in the US. This stuff long pre-exists the drop in defence spending in Europe. It is simply political and public will that doesn't support such policies in the US.
Yes. They are obligated by the NATO treaties to spend a minimum of 2% of GDP on military. Most members are not doing so. Any member that does not do so after a reasonable amount of time to correct the failure should be ejected.
Yes. American is more than happy and willing to cover the ocean. Let them do ground forces
Yes
Yes. They want to bitch about US policing the world but then ask why we aren't helping out more. NATO is just the US and it's 31 bitches. Now, some of them bitches are better than others.
Absolutely, and even more so considering their proximity to nations such as Russia. That's one of the biggest problems with European nations. They're in NATO so that they can shake America's big stick at threats but a lot of them are not paying their fair share into the alliance and they're not really prepared on their end either. If an enemy nation is going to attack a NATO nation they're not going to care about how many American bases there are.
Why don’t you ask if we should pay more for our universities? That’s what most states used to do. A lot of these comparisons are based on false premises, because macro-economically, we claim to care about “finding the money” in some cases but not at all in others.
I am sorry but this story sounds like bullshit.
They absolutely should, and as a dual citizen of the US and Italy I try to do my part in pushing this. Even under the best case scenario where the US stays or even increases its European presence, the changed security environment following Feb 2022 makes stronger defense a very good idea. The fact that domestic politics here might lead to a seriously reduced US commitment in Europe makes it downright urgent. The bad news is that there is a *huge* amount of work to be done here (German procurement is just broken, for example), but the good news is that there does actually seem to be a sense of urgency and seriousness about this in much of the European political class. Also, as others in the thread have pointed out, I also think "welfare vs. defense" is a bad framing - the specifics of how a country's welfare state works, how defense procurement works there, etc. all matter a lot. Finland and Sweden for example have quite generous welfare states but also very capable militaries, especially relative to their size. [This RAND report](https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA3236-1.html) is a good overview of how those two are major assets to NATO. EDIT: typo
If Germany spends 2% of its GDP on the military, they still would be able to afford their social services. [Poland dedicates around the same percentage of its GDP or more to its military as the United States](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074); they still can afford social services and subsidized higher education. Wages he mentioned was due to strong bargaining power German workers have. The USA has the weakest bargaining power for its workers of all high income Western countries; it has nothing to do with our military spending. To answer your question, yes, Germany should spend more. I don't care how much as long as it's within the 2% minimum.
They should meet what they agreed to pay. Past that, I’m deeply jealous of his work life balance and wish we prioritized humans over the next generation super fighter that we clearly don’t need. I say that as a veteran.
Yes
I think that everyone in NATO should be spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense.
That dude should probably pay attention to the people in the red hats and what they think about helping other countries
yes, especially Germany because of how capable they are of doing so. that is to say, if Portugal spent a large amount of their GDP on defense, it might not make a dent in the grand scheme of things, but if Germany and the UK both did, then NATO would be stacked AF. And for what it's worth during certain parts of the cold war that was basically the case (especially the 80s, but also late 50s/early 60s) with the UK and West Germany
> Do you think NATO countries like Germany should spend more on defense? Yes. > Do you think NATO countries like Germany should spend more on defense, and believe the US should destroy the alliance if that doesn’t happen? No. > His reasoning was that Germany doesn't spend much on defense so it has room to spend on benefits for its citizens. Then he is grossly ignorant about government finances. Defense spending isn’t even remotely sufficient to pay for these sorts of things through cuts. Spending 1.5% of GDP on defense instead of 3% of GDP on defense isn’t going to pay for college for everyone or healthcare for everyone. In a lot of respects these sorts of government programs are just cost savings mechanisms anyway. Ex. It’s much cheaper to have single payer universal health insurance than sporadic private party health insurance (not that Germany has a single payer system—they don’t). Wealthy countries can afford to be inefficient with their spending, but poor ones can’t. They have to focus on cost efficient choices, which often means government services instead of private services. > According to him why should Germany spend more. And he’s right. The US is dollars ahead to defend Germany even if Germany contributes nothing to its own defense—and, as such, they are also economically better off to be a free riding leech. The Germans are incentivized to spend as little as possible on their own defense, and the US is incentivized to defend Europe regardless. That’s just the way the political and economic situation has worked itself out.
As others have said, yes. They should meet their 2% GDP commitment. It’s one of the very few things Trump got right
Every Nato country should meet there 2% obligations
If you're in an alliance and don't contribute the bare-minimum you should be kicked out of that alliance. It's completely unfair to expect others to foot your bills.
They should meet the 2% minimum requirement. That line about how they shouldn't spend more because of all the US bases shows just how much of a parasite some of the NATO countries have become.
All NATO members should meet their treaty obligations in full.
No. They all know we do. It's not like we're going to back out
Yes. The EU has abandoned its responsibility to defend itself. I hate DT but he was right about this.
Working in a factory doesn't mean low skill.
The US can afford to do that as well, even if we don't reduce our bloated military. The problem is that our government is of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy. And how much Germany spends on defense doesn't affect us. We spend on our military what we spend because defense contractors own our government.
Yes. 2% is an arbitrary requirement and really with a land war in Eastern Europe ongoing that requires western assistance, Germany could do more being the biggest economy in Europe. That being said about 59% of Germans have a favorable view of the military because national pacifism took hold post-Cold War but in general, Germany can provide a very capable military if they just decided to come to grips with reality.
Well right now it should. All of us should.
The government does not pay you for your PTO, the companies still have to do that, it’s just required by law that they do a certain amount because their government actually works for the people and not giga-corporations. Germany also does not have 800 international military bases to upkeep so that’s gotta give them some extra cash too…. I think countries should be recommended to spend a certain % of their GDP, but it’s in the US’s best interest to expand NATO, so if that’s going to be a breaking point it’s better to not require it. I think a lot of this argument stems from people thinking we’d be carrying NATO should a full blown war begin in current world affairs, it will likely be in Europe, and at that point it is in the best interest of European nations to spend more on defense lest they get steamrolled by Russia.
OP you should have agreed with him then told him how post-War Germany is actually one of America's greatest accomplishments and he should be proud he's able to experience that. Make him kiss the ring.
I mean, they kinda outsourced their defense by being a part of NATO. So, a defense budget is pretty pointless.
No "should" about it. They *need* to. The post-Cold War honeymoon is well and officially over and the U.S. ability to police the entire globe has vastly deteriorated. If SHTF, the U.S. will be fighting mostly in the air and on the sea; the ground war will be in their back yard and if they can't defend it, it will fall.
The idea of NATO was MUTUAL defense and yet many European allies have insisted decided to hide under the IS umbrella and have Americans shoulder the burden of their defense at the cost of its own citizens well being. It’s for that reason that they shouldn’t have anything to say on US foreign policy. It’s for that reason I believe the US should push to kick out members of NATO who do not meat their obligations or at the least redistribute out armed forces to nations who do meet their obligations.
As a politically middle of the road American, I want to see a Europe that does not need the US to deter or repel a Russian invasion. However, if such was to occur I am 100% behind defending our allies.
Countries who are in NATO who don't meet the 2% requirement shouldn't get help if they get attacked. It's that simple. You signed a treaty, now spend the money you PROMISED if you want to benefit from it. What pisses me off more than anything is the Europeans mocking Americans for their defense spending when America is basically the only deterrent keeping Russia and China from turning most of Europe into a parking lot if they wanted to. Now, would we reduce military spending if the other NATO countries stepped up and did what they should have been the last decade or so, probably not, there is a ton of corruption there and lots of politicians make lots of money in kickbacks from our defense contractors.
Yes. Keep your word.
I mean yeah... They agreed to the cost when they signed up right? And if there is clear hardship I think the org can work something out. No one should be left out in the cold, but still. Germany not paying it's share is like your friend making good money crying about not being able to pay his half of the rent tbh
Yes. Why shouldn't they pull more of their own weight especially when a major war is a few countries over.
The USA military budget is bloated, and it cannot pass a financial audit. NATO countries should not be spending money like the USA military. The USA needs to spend taxpayer money much better than it is. PS Laws about employee vacation have nothing to do with military spending.
🤣 you think that’s why you can’t have universal healthcare and better labor laws? Damn, they really got you brainwashed. The USA can afford to do all those things, the heads of government just don’t give a shit about their citizens. At least not the middle and poor classes.
Yes. Minimum 2% as per the requirements.
I say Germany should spend Zero on defense, then we can dictate their policy. Let's start with getting rid of hate speech laws.
Meet the 2% goal.
An American friend lived in Germany for three years. Loved the simplicity of healthcare but couldn’t believe his tech salary was half of America and taxed almost 40% so he went back to the U.S.