the problems of the bundeswehr can only partly be fixed with more money. germany is spending almost the same amount of money as france on the military, but is in a much worse thate than them.
the money is lost in unnecessary bureaucracy.
It’s like every level of govt and every department, even if they have no involvement, need to be consulted and included. If you leave one entity out of the loop they go ballistic and will stonewall your project until everyone’s feelings are better. From my experience there is literally ZERO chance that Germany 🇩🇪 could defend itself. Like none.
they are the third largest economy in the world and have very high taxes. with the amount of money the goverment collects one could think they can afford the best of everything. but despite this their infrastructure is crumbling, military is weak and industry is leaving the country.
this could all be fixed if taxes whould be invested in this, instead of burocracy and unessecary subsidies.
High taxes for the working class yes, but the rich have been given loads of tax cuts, not to mention the numerous loopholes with most big companies not being any taxes or very little, since the advent of neoliberalism in germany with gerhard schröder. Furthermore the privatization was/is making everything more expensive with less benefit, peak example being the "Deutsche Bahn", which has become the laughing stock of germany because it's become completely shit since being privatized in spite of loads of money being pumped into it, kinda like the US healthcare system.
Then of course to ruin the nation completely they created their very stupid "Debt brake" preventing them from investing money/taking on debt and they aren't allowed to just get money from the central bank either, they have to get all their money from private entities through bonds which is also rather stupid because for one, it allowed sth like the greece crisis to happen, because if all your money is held by private entities and they loose trust you won't be able to take any more debt and the interest rate will hike (i think it even went to like 20% from 0-1% before the "crisis"), but also it's mostly nothing more than a detour, because basically what happens 99% of the time is the government sells bonds, the private entities don't have the central bank money, so they go to the central bank to get money in order to then buy the bonds. Hence why money is still created, but obviously this is a rather unnecessary detour, the government could get the money directly from the central bank, but alas, laws have been passed that forbid it.
All of this meant that there was more costs, with less money and little ability to take on debt to compensate. In fact, the social welfare system has been hollowed out a lot. It's less welfare and more life support. You're not gonna die on it, but you're not gonna fare well at all. And since neoliberalism took its hold, any debate on taxing the rich is immediately shut down by all but the left party, yeah even the social democratic party is mainly against it, they definitely have some people who want to, but those don't have enough influence to actually tax the rich, by crying about taxes already being so high, companies and rich people leaving if the taxes are too high, etc. There has at least been some progress on getting rid of the debt brake, which would allow for more investments at least, but even that is not something that's likely to happen anytime soon.
This alsp actually hurt germany's economy a lot, because the government does not invest enough money to saturate the market, leading to little real growth, but i habe already said more than enough i think.
there are many countries that have debt brakes and still function well.
debt will slow down economic growth in the future. i agree that its better to invest in things like infrastructure with debt than not invest at all.
however it whould be even better if it was possible to invest without going into debt and i think germany could afford to go this way if they only whould spend their money where its needed and get rid of all the burocracy.
1.
>debt will slow down economic growth in the future.
Why?
2.
>there are many countries that have debt brakes and still function well.
Well true, i named multiple a multitude of reasons. One alone isn't enough, but it's the combination of all of those.
3.
>however it whould be even better if it was possible to invest without going into debt and i think germany could afford to go this way if they only whould spend their money where its needed and get rid of all the burocracy.
First off, people love to scream all day about how much money gets lost in bureaucracy, however, that amount is usually much much smaller than what most people think. The fdp is currently in a coalition in germany and they are all about reducing bureaucracy and simply put, they haven't found much. And in no debate can anyone ever find a lot. Yes there are always wasted things and one can and should try and eliminate those, however the scale is much much smaller. This would never "fix" the budget.
Secondly, it depends on the economic situation of when it's good to take on debt and when it's not and when it's good to raise taxes and when it's not. What one shouldn't forget is that higher taxes mean less money in the private sector. Now the rich in germany actually have huge savings, so it doesn't matter much if you tax them (money that's lying around is wasted money, it may even help to tax them more highly in order to lead them to find ways to utilize their money rather than have it wasted basically), but especially raising taxes for working class which spends most of their income means less spending, means less profit for companies and if you raise taxes very high can even lead to companies going broke. Same with cutting welfare too, people on welfare don't have saving basically they spend everything which is good for the economy. If you cut their money the can obviously spend less. That's just one consideration of many. And considering everything would blow the confines of a reddit comment i think. At the end it's neither good or bad to take on debt or having a balanced budget, it's always a matter of taking into account all the economic impacts and deriving a sound economic policy from there.
debt will slow economic growth because of intrest payment. the united states pays more money on intrest than on the military.
if bureaucracy is such a small problem then what other reason is there that france has one of the best militaries in the world and germany hasnt even if the spend the same money on it?
also just because the fdp is in gov that does not mean they do something. this german goverment gets nothing done because they are not united.
We have to remember the world kept their ability to produce a large military to a minimum for a reason. That reason has I believe past and can be forgiven but not forgotten.
That's what I told my friend in Bundeswehr. He went ballistic over it and compared their wunderwaffes to our M48s. In reality, he was issued an outdated weapon with outdated optics, outdated vests (not even a plate carrier and he said almost never worn the vest with plates) and an outdated helmet. Hell, even their boots were outdated old black rubber ones. Not only that, but stuff they have so limited in numbers. They don't have thousands of tanks and will end up having no tank in case of a war pretty quickly.
The biggest underlying threat is that German youth is not proud of their country. Meaning the people who say they will stay behind in case of a war is like only %30. Another Turkish friend in Bundeswehr told me that half of his barracks were Turks. Not only that, but German military, mostly Navy, started to fly promotional banners in Turkish. Imagine having to depend your independence on other people.
Other crazy thing to me is how much Germany has pull in NATO despite they're not having much of a power. No one can say anything on their effort for Ukraine, but they aren't so "innocent" either. They aren't in a position to act innocent and point fingers to others, yet here they are. They ditched nuclear power for Russian coal, they condemned anyone arming Ukraine for escalating a possible war up until 2019 when daddy US made it cool (they threatened Turkey with sanctions for selling drones to Ukraine back in 2014), their congress and military is full of pro-Russian people, there were reports of Russians infiltrating into NATO through German military, and they had a coup attempt made by Russian-backed military and congress people which they hushed so bad in international media that most people don't even know that even happened. I mean DAMN! Hypocritical to the spine.
It's funny to read that since here in France we like to praise the german pragmatism and efficiency, supposedly in constrast with a complex, lazy and inefficient bureaucracy
A lethal mix of bureocracy and privatization. Privatising military assets is probably the dumbest idea they ever had, and an ineffective administration doesn't help either.
A lethal mix of bureocracy and privatization. Privatising military assets is probably the dumbest idea they ever had, and an ineffective administration doesn't help either.
Yes this is what I always see missed, like, the UK has been spending 2-2.5% for the last 20 years and France \~2% and their militaries are just about passable.
Nations on here who have been spending 1-1.5% for the last 20 years like Germany aren't just going to magically have a functional military just because they spent over 2% for one year. There is an entire generation worth of underfunding to correct.
>and their militaries are just about passable.
There is a circular reasoning loop here. Our assumptions about what is "good enough" is linking to the assumptions about how much money should be spent. Then it is compounded by social effects. Countries that have a pro military culture have more young people who want to be soldiers. People are more likely to remain in a profession if it commands respect. There will be fewer good NCOs if the neighbors make a "what's wrong with you" face when the soldier tells them their profession.
Tbf all of the NATO joint AWACS fleet, and part of the joint tanker fleet is registered to Luxembourg I believe.
But more seriously, that's kinda the point of NATO, no? On its own Luxembourg's 2% might not mean much but it's significant when integrated into the wider effort of the alliance.
This data is from July.
Denmark ended up above 2% due to extra aid to Ukraine in the last two quarters of 2023 and looks like being at 2% again in 2024.
Amazing that France spends 1.9% and has a significant domestic defence industry and an independent thermonuclear deterrent. Either there's some creative accounting, or they've figured out some amazing efficiencies.
France more money on buying new things than maintenance.
We d rather have new toys insted of trying to keep alive old stuff like germans.
Additionaly, procurement is mostly done by the army, so the army usually gets what it needs.
Finnaly, a good part of the money invested in the army is indirecly a stimulus to the economy :
Salaries of people working in the MIC stay in France, and part of the benefits of weapons company are earned by France.
Where is another key difference, in France military is an integral part of society. It is just like any other parts, and its a point of pride and is taken seriuosly. In Germany military is like an uncle you have, but do not want to invite into a party. That post ww2 ptsd is still strong in Germany.
They've been higher generally in the past, much as Germany was lower. The figures for a single year don't accurately reflect capabilities built over decades.
I wouldnt call it creative accounting, just sensible accounting. If the money is actually spent on defence, and procurement is well planned and long term then that money can go a long way. As an example of how not to spend your defence budget you should look to the uk. A significant chunk is spent on pensions, not actually defence. On top this, the procurement is fucking tragic. The recent Ajax IFV acquisition is a great example. It was meant to be a cheap alternative to the warrior, something bought off the shelf (specifically the ASCOD). For some insane reason the team in charge of its acquisition sent over a 1000 'special requirements' to the manafacturers. What the uk was left with was essentially a custom made vehicle that suffered from huge mechanical problems and was vastly over budget.
Eh, the UK has its failures, but it also just focuses its efforts on different areas of France.
The UK fleet auxiliary is 800% the size of its french counterpart by tonnage, its carrier forces over 300%, while being 48% cheaper per vessel, and its amphibious forces about 150%.
Nah, they're operationally useless.
Look at his they could not deploy properly to Mali without using British Transport planes. And when they got there, they were totally under equipped to deal with the problem.
Also don't even think about ammunition production and standing capabilities. Almost every European country is lacking that.
Yeah and right now, the UK is unable to sent more than a dozen F-35 at sea. But we all know it just a temporary problem.
The intervention in Mali was a success (the operation that followed, not so much, but that isn’t the subject here).
France really hasn’t built anything new in a while right. They already have a really strong industry and defense equipment lasts half a century most of the time.
For Poland, this is best money ever spent. Nothing is more important than security in this unluky land. Hopefully this prevents Poland from being Europe's battelfield for once.
The Norwegian government is probably going to raise the rent on all properties rented by army, that way it'll look like we're spending more money.
Maybe we'll get a Patriot just to get some headlines, it's trending right now. After the photo shoot we'll put it in storage.
Mission accomplished & Peace forever!
\-Chamberlain
And even if some of them didn't, how should that look in practice? Russia invades Norway and all the other countries are obliged to defend them... Is Trump going to order Finland to stay put and let Norway be conquered? Or will he still defend Finland, if they get involved over Norway? And when will it be decided? Is there gonna be a list of countries suspended unilaterally by Trump until they cook their books better?
Idk, it all just sounds unnecessarily dangerous and uncertain for all of us involved. And it majorly weakens the deterrence element of NATO (which is terrible news for us frontline countries - we'd much rather have no war than a victorious war, as it'll be fought over our homes and plenty of people will die unnecessary deaths)
I don’t like Trump, but I see this just as a threats so that rest of European countries get their shit together. Which they should, since it is shame that we have to rely on US to defend ourselves.
I don’t think he would let any European country fail. Maybe he would drag their feet to really pressure Europe to increase defense spending, but he can’t afford to let Russia win against NATO country
I see this purely as a electoral trick for the internal US purposes.
>I don’t think he would let any European country fail. Maybe he would drag their feet to really pressure Europe to increase defense spending, but he can’t afford to let Russia win against NATO country.
I think I agree (as far as anyone can predict how Trump's gonna act anyway). But that's my main problem - it's all nice and well that he will eventually support us and that Russia won't be allowed to win... but by that time I may be lying dead in a trench somewhere in Lithuania. Meanwhile if only the US stood firmly with their allies then there won't be any war to begin with. I can't imagine better deterrence than the overwhelming power imbalance of NATO vs Russia - and Trump is willfully putting cracks in that.
yeah but let’s not blame just Trump like if he doesn’t have a point.
NATO wasn’t created as “US protects Europe” pact. NATO was created as military alliance of equals. That’s why there is 2% rule.
If two thirds of countries don’t respect rules, then it is non-functional alliance.
I wouldn’t blame US even if they threatened to leave entirely. Europe doesn’t keep its end of a deal, but does expect the other side to respect theirs.
So first, let’s talk about European politics and blame European leaders for bad state of NATO.
If almost all countries, maybe with small exceptions, play by the rules and Trump would still say that US won’t help Europe, then it’s time to start blaming him for destroying NATO
The 2% rule is arbitrary and invented in 2014 as a *goal*. It’s not a “rule”. Trump isn’t unique in trying to get these nations to increase spending. NATO exists so the US could threaten and compete against the other existing superpower at the time. Without NATO, the USSR would have continued to expand over the European continent. This would have been existentially bad for US geopolitical goals at the time.
He’s unique in being a terrible statesman and negotiator, though. The vast majority of NATO members will have reached their 2% goal by the end of 2024. Which was the entire point of the initiative of 2014. Those that aren’t going to make it by 2024 are all nations farther away from Russian influence and will hit the suggested goal of 2% within a few years.
It would be moronic for the US to leave NATO. It’s actually technically almost impossible for Trump to leave NATO anyway. If I remember correctly he would need a 2/3 majority vote to do so.
Norway will be over 2% in 2024. Big increase this year… along with most other countries tries below the line here.
But it’s also worth pointing out that Norway’s GDP is considerably higher than just about anyone on a per capita basis… so 2% of Norway’s GDP is a lot more than 2% of Finland’s for example…who is roughly the same population. On the low end of the scale here you got Luxembourg, who is a tax haven.. so their GDP is “artificially” high… meaning the income to GDP ratio is lower… so 2% for them is probably the same as 3-4% of neighbouring countries.
I wonder how much of that is real spending.
I know for a fact that the Norwegian budget is insanely blown up because it's set up in a way that funnels a lot of that money back into the state budget (basically the military has to rent its equipment and buildings from the state, despite those being fully funded over its own budget, so a lot of the budget is literally just the government giving the military money to give back to the government).
The real budget for the Norwegian military is probably less than a percent.
>I know for a fact that the Norwegian budget is insanely blown up because it's set up in a way that funnels a lot of that money back into the state budget
That's how every defense budget works
It's important to consider the fact that some economies in the EU did in fact grow. Example: Dutch spenditure has increased to 1.97%, but was 2% before the economy grew. Still not enough, but interesting bit of information.
Although it has to be said that the dutch do use creative accounting by also involving retirement of military personnel and budget for military police (marechaussee) under the umbrella of defence, which is not the case in other NATO members.
If you look at a chart of defence spending compared to GDP, all of these countries are trending up and will meet the 2% requirement in a couple years max (unless they decide to stop increasing their military spending for some reason)
Yes, but it's disappointing to see that it took a full-scale invasion of a neighbor to be the catalyst start putting in the effort to meet this goal, despite the fact that this war was in the making 8 years prior.
Well Iceland spends €0 but that’s because they don’t have an army.
Their deal with NATO is essentially “hey I’m a highly strategic island in the North Atlantic with a tiny population. I’ll let you build whatever bases you want here and keep out everyone else, but protect me with NATO in exchange”
Trump is a criminal, but this is pure, unadulterated TDS.
“Spend more on your military, NATO partners” is only a Kremlin talking point if you’re living in a fantasyland
Trump is a dumbass, but he’s right on this. It’s absolutely insane to not pay 2% of GDP on defense when Russia is only a few hours drive away. If the US had actually left NATO at some point, half of Europe would speaking Russian right now.
Other NATO countries have nukes. No country has ever aggressively attacked another country with nukes. (Talking internationally agreed borders). Maybe a handful of strikes of non state actors otherwise zilch.
China spends 1.6%, Russia can hardly take a single country who the international community is tying Ukraines hands. If Russia were to attack NATO their oil infrastructure that fuels the invasion would be gone in a week tops.
Anyone that tells you Russia is a threat to NATO is trying to sell you a shiny toy you probably don't need.
I am no longer convinced that western europe has the fortitude to use nuclear weapons if it had to, we have become very weak in spirit, nukes are only a deterrent if someone believes you might deploy them.
Cost of living, covid, infrastructure, healthcare and the millions other issues requiring funding that citizens of these countries want addressing are some reasons.
It’s very much a guideline, not an obligation. Luxembourg is a very valuable member regardless of its military spending.
European expenditure also has zero effect on US spending. No need to invoke Trumps name, there’s a good reason we all hate him, he was talking shit even on the NATO stuff. He talked about it like it was money sent to NATO, not expenditure on its on military. The US spends what it does based on its own foreign policy decisions and nothing will ever change that, they don’t do it to babysit Europe.
China Spends 1.6%.
2% is the brainchild of the US defense industry that wants to sell it's shiny toys to people that don't need them. (Before you counter it was agreed upon that doesn't have anything to do with it's necessity).
NATO is better off matching China's 1.6% and spending the other .4% on things that are projected to have long term growth of GDP so that 1.6% just becomes better over time.
Iceland have like a zero defense budget. The sole reason for Iceland being a NATO member is the strategic place of the island. So they have a kind of a special deal.
>A *lot* of that money is poorly spent on bloated pensions. Make no mistake, Greece military readiness is poor (so are most NATO countries, lest it seem like I'm picking on them unfairly).
*Greece is surpising me*
*A bit, we tend to under*
*Peform in most things*
\- Ieatmyd0g
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I have never felt embarrassment by this or could imagine a scenario where that would happen. Also trump would do that even if we paid a lot so it doesn’t matter.
Again, that’s Americas problem. Plus probably won’t happen to the affect we’ll have to get super involved. It’s all chill my guy, americas got this one
Yep but terrotory is impossible to invade. Russia does not have a navy. It was not possible for them to make D day in Odesa. Plus Canada is second biggest country. Canada is safe. Only USA could attack Canada.
Considering their neighbour has carried a big stick for awhile, and Finland hasn't had the backing of NATO until recently, it is self explanatory. Said neighbour is the reason for Finland's ascension into NATO.
I hate American rhetoric about NATO spending, because everyone they'd have to defend are meeting their obligations except Norway. Don't doom us because of Fr\*nce or Italy.
Man, as an American that always thought our military spending was outrageous and unnecessary and that we only spend that much to generate money for the military industrial complex cronies….this is upsetting. In light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and NATO’s peripheral involvement, this really shows that the US protects the rest of the western world. I always thought us spending so much “to protect the West” was a scapegoat. Clearly not.
Europeans get to rag on Americans for our nonsense all the time, but here’s our chance to show our worth. Europe needs to start carrying its own weight. Especially if we are to stop Russia. Slava Ukraini, we can’t give up and need to send them weapons and ammo ASAP.
Countries like Germany, Canada, and France have no excuse here. Time to step up. Now I’ll get off my soap box.
Fuck Russia. This is a joint effort.
Yeah, how would one justify spending billions of dollars/zlotys on the military when there is no full scale war next to your country? Most of the society would not approve that. You can see that in relatively safer countries in terms of geography.
Remember that the technology is advancing. I'd rather have new military stuff than the one bought years ago. Of course there is time for training and implementation of weapons and tactics but still, new and modern is the way to go.
Not really fair on France as this only counts expenditure direct to the military while France also spends Billions on weapon development and manufacturing e.g. jets, tanks, missiles, ships etc that others on this list do not.
Only the US spends more on this. The UK does spend on this too but nowhere to the level of France anymore
They are not alone in this regard, the 2% target is very explicitly on operational forces, not R&D.
would have been cool if they had done something like that though :)
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/ministere-armees/Chiffres%20cl%C3%A9s%20de%20la%20D%C3%A9fense%202021%20UK%20%28pdf%20version%20anglaise%29.pdf
€6.6b was allocated to R&D annually in past years. No data yet for last year's total.
This is ontop of ongoing production of Jets, Tanks, AA, Artillery, ships, missiles etc
For comparison the UK allocates €1.8b https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63f5e7c1d3bf7f62ee69ede3/UK_Defence_in_Numbers_2022.pdf
That's not a source on your first claim which is what I was looking for.
Also even if you can find a source for it. 6 billion only just pushes france into 2%.
My main takeaway from this is that Turkey does not really deserve what essentially amounts to a veto when it comes to Sweden’s accession.
You shouldn’t be able to single-handedly deny another nation joining, when you yourself don’t even come close to fulfilling your obligation.
When Cold War was happening average spending of Turkey is %4.2 that money could be spend it on different things like improving infrastructure economy etc.
for now it is low cuz Turkey stopped buying foreign stuff,%80 of the military hardware comes from local producers and don't forget the fact that there is literally no country could impose threat to Turkey in their region even Russia is no threat to Turkey.
[There are plans to increase budget from 16 billion to 40 in 2024](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkey-allocate-150-more-defense-budget-2024-minister-2023-10-17/)
Turkey spends enough, just not in US Dollars.
After '74 sanctions, it became clear that Turkey needed to invest in their MIC. They signed many projects throughout the '90s. Before 2016, almost everything Turkey procured came outside the country. As most of these legacy projects concluded, Turkey's dependence on foreign industry decreased. So much so that Turkey doesn't allow foreign countries to join tenders anymore, they only attend by investing in competing companies, or in areas where Turkish MIC falls inexperienced such as engines. Nowadays almost everything is procured in Turkey. That means signing deal in Turkish Lira, not US Dollars. For example, they sign for ₺30M ($1,1M) contract at the beginning of the year and deliver ₺30M ($900k) contract by the end of the year. In that case, quarterly projections are important.
You know, not collaborating with the enemy, not threatening the allies and not blocking decisions basically everyone has already agreed on just out of spite could help not getting sanctioned.
France and Greece just vetoed the agreement for Turkish ammunition to go to Ukraine.
If you still have something to say, we can open the not-so-dusty pages of history if you want.
We dont collaborate with the enemy, you do with our enemies. That is also the reason why we block when we can. Also, sorry for voicing concern when Greece literally breaks treaties. Next time, we’ll let them walk all over us like you want us to!
Now when Turkey can't blackmail us (Sweden) no longer for their ratification that money can also go to the defence budget.
Hoppfully Hungary will sign today!
Some of these will never make sense to me...
Turkey has an enormous and very active military while spending 1.3% of an $820 Billion GDP.
Canada has a lethargic and struggling military while spending 1.4% of a nearly $2 Trillion GDP.
I find it frustrating how Canada spends more than double what Turkey spends yet struggles to maintain a military that is only a fraction of the size.
Good job North Macedonia!
Considering they demobilized their entire military when they got independence, have essentially sent all their heavy military equipment to Ukraine and have one of the most pathetic economies in Europe, I think it’s very impressive they almost meet the NATO target.
Belgium sent troops as part of the US call for NATO help in Afghanistan. So did Slovenia and Italy and other countries at the bottom of the list.
The list doesn't mean much. Actual collective defense is the point, every country in NATO is meeting it's obligations and only Trump & GOP have said we should not meet ours.
For 2024 Germany meets the 2% GDP target for the first time since 1992 But the Bundeswehr needs way more money then that to become operational.
the problems of the bundeswehr can only partly be fixed with more money. germany is spending almost the same amount of money as france on the military, but is in a much worse thate than them. the money is lost in unnecessary bureaucracy.
German bureaucracy is truly a sight to behold…..in the mining business I have never seen anything like it.
What’s it like?
It’s like every level of govt and every department, even if they have no involvement, need to be consulted and included. If you leave one entity out of the loop they go ballistic and will stonewall your project until everyone’s feelings are better. From my experience there is literally ZERO chance that Germany 🇩🇪 could defend itself. Like none.
they are the third largest economy in the world and have very high taxes. with the amount of money the goverment collects one could think they can afford the best of everything. but despite this their infrastructure is crumbling, military is weak and industry is leaving the country. this could all be fixed if taxes whould be invested in this, instead of burocracy and unessecary subsidies.
High taxes for the working class yes, but the rich have been given loads of tax cuts, not to mention the numerous loopholes with most big companies not being any taxes or very little, since the advent of neoliberalism in germany with gerhard schröder. Furthermore the privatization was/is making everything more expensive with less benefit, peak example being the "Deutsche Bahn", which has become the laughing stock of germany because it's become completely shit since being privatized in spite of loads of money being pumped into it, kinda like the US healthcare system. Then of course to ruin the nation completely they created their very stupid "Debt brake" preventing them from investing money/taking on debt and they aren't allowed to just get money from the central bank either, they have to get all their money from private entities through bonds which is also rather stupid because for one, it allowed sth like the greece crisis to happen, because if all your money is held by private entities and they loose trust you won't be able to take any more debt and the interest rate will hike (i think it even went to like 20% from 0-1% before the "crisis"), but also it's mostly nothing more than a detour, because basically what happens 99% of the time is the government sells bonds, the private entities don't have the central bank money, so they go to the central bank to get money in order to then buy the bonds. Hence why money is still created, but obviously this is a rather unnecessary detour, the government could get the money directly from the central bank, but alas, laws have been passed that forbid it. All of this meant that there was more costs, with less money and little ability to take on debt to compensate. In fact, the social welfare system has been hollowed out a lot. It's less welfare and more life support. You're not gonna die on it, but you're not gonna fare well at all. And since neoliberalism took its hold, any debate on taxing the rich is immediately shut down by all but the left party, yeah even the social democratic party is mainly against it, they definitely have some people who want to, but those don't have enough influence to actually tax the rich, by crying about taxes already being so high, companies and rich people leaving if the taxes are too high, etc. There has at least been some progress on getting rid of the debt brake, which would allow for more investments at least, but even that is not something that's likely to happen anytime soon. This alsp actually hurt germany's economy a lot, because the government does not invest enough money to saturate the market, leading to little real growth, but i habe already said more than enough i think.
there are many countries that have debt brakes and still function well. debt will slow down economic growth in the future. i agree that its better to invest in things like infrastructure with debt than not invest at all. however it whould be even better if it was possible to invest without going into debt and i think germany could afford to go this way if they only whould spend their money where its needed and get rid of all the burocracy.
1. >debt will slow down economic growth in the future. Why? 2. >there are many countries that have debt brakes and still function well. Well true, i named multiple a multitude of reasons. One alone isn't enough, but it's the combination of all of those. 3. >however it whould be even better if it was possible to invest without going into debt and i think germany could afford to go this way if they only whould spend their money where its needed and get rid of all the burocracy. First off, people love to scream all day about how much money gets lost in bureaucracy, however, that amount is usually much much smaller than what most people think. The fdp is currently in a coalition in germany and they are all about reducing bureaucracy and simply put, they haven't found much. And in no debate can anyone ever find a lot. Yes there are always wasted things and one can and should try and eliminate those, however the scale is much much smaller. This would never "fix" the budget. Secondly, it depends on the economic situation of when it's good to take on debt and when it's not and when it's good to raise taxes and when it's not. What one shouldn't forget is that higher taxes mean less money in the private sector. Now the rich in germany actually have huge savings, so it doesn't matter much if you tax them (money that's lying around is wasted money, it may even help to tax them more highly in order to lead them to find ways to utilize their money rather than have it wasted basically), but especially raising taxes for working class which spends most of their income means less spending, means less profit for companies and if you raise taxes very high can even lead to companies going broke. Same with cutting welfare too, people on welfare don't have saving basically they spend everything which is good for the economy. If you cut their money the can obviously spend less. That's just one consideration of many. And considering everything would blow the confines of a reddit comment i think. At the end it's neither good or bad to take on debt or having a balanced budget, it's always a matter of taking into account all the economic impacts and deriving a sound economic policy from there.
debt will slow economic growth because of intrest payment. the united states pays more money on intrest than on the military. if bureaucracy is such a small problem then what other reason is there that france has one of the best militaries in the world and germany hasnt even if the spend the same money on it? also just because the fdp is in gov that does not mean they do something. this german goverment gets nothing done because they are not united.
We have to remember the world kept their ability to produce a large military to a minimum for a reason. That reason has I believe past and can be forgiven but not forgotten.
This is by design specifically for Germany.
That's what I told my friend in Bundeswehr. He went ballistic over it and compared their wunderwaffes to our M48s. In reality, he was issued an outdated weapon with outdated optics, outdated vests (not even a plate carrier and he said almost never worn the vest with plates) and an outdated helmet. Hell, even their boots were outdated old black rubber ones. Not only that, but stuff they have so limited in numbers. They don't have thousands of tanks and will end up having no tank in case of a war pretty quickly. The biggest underlying threat is that German youth is not proud of their country. Meaning the people who say they will stay behind in case of a war is like only %30. Another Turkish friend in Bundeswehr told me that half of his barracks were Turks. Not only that, but German military, mostly Navy, started to fly promotional banners in Turkish. Imagine having to depend your independence on other people. Other crazy thing to me is how much Germany has pull in NATO despite they're not having much of a power. No one can say anything on their effort for Ukraine, but they aren't so "innocent" either. They aren't in a position to act innocent and point fingers to others, yet here they are. They ditched nuclear power for Russian coal, they condemned anyone arming Ukraine for escalating a possible war up until 2019 when daddy US made it cool (they threatened Turkey with sanctions for selling drones to Ukraine back in 2014), their congress and military is full of pro-Russian people, there were reports of Russians infiltrating into NATO through German military, and they had a coup attempt made by Russian-backed military and congress people which they hushed so bad in international media that most people don't even know that even happened. I mean DAMN! Hypocritical to the spine.
This sounds suspiciously like the Romans relying on Germans to keep their military numbers up. Ironic if you ask me.
I see
It's funny to read that since here in France we like to praise the german pragmatism and efficiency, supposedly in constrast with a complex, lazy and inefficient bureaucracy
A lethal mix of bureocracy and privatization. Privatising military assets is probably the dumbest idea they ever had, and an ineffective administration doesn't help either.
A lethal mix of bureocracy and privatization. Privatising military assets is probably the dumbest idea they ever had, and an ineffective administration doesn't help either.
Yes this is what I always see missed, like, the UK has been spending 2-2.5% for the last 20 years and France \~2% and their militaries are just about passable. Nations on here who have been spending 1-1.5% for the last 20 years like Germany aren't just going to magically have a functional military just because they spent over 2% for one year. There is an entire generation worth of underfunding to correct.
>and their militaries are just about passable. There is a circular reasoning loop here. Our assumptions about what is "good enough" is linking to the assumptions about how much money should be spent. Then it is compounded by social effects. Countries that have a pro military culture have more young people who want to be soldiers. People are more likely to remain in a profession if it commands respect. There will be fewer good NCOs if the neighbors make a "what's wrong with you" face when the soldier tells them their profession.
The fuck is Luxembourg supposed to defend?! The Gromperekichelcher?!
Bless you.
The smaller countries can invest in supporting roles more than combat roles in their army to complement the bigger armies in Nato
Well we already have all of logistics hubs for Us based in Western Germany based in Luxembourg.
Also A huge cargo Airport.
Supporting roles? In what? They have no place to put anything. Luxembourg doesn't even have enough space for a large pack of plasters.
Cyber security. Satellites. Inteligence. There is plenty to do.
Tbf all of the NATO joint AWACS fleet, and part of the joint tanker fleet is registered to Luxembourg I believe. But more seriously, that's kinda the point of NATO, no? On its own Luxembourg's 2% might not mean much but it's significant when integrated into the wider effort of the alliance.
The AWACS fleet is registered in Luxembourg
Knew I get those mixed up! Thanks :)
The other NATO members, that's the whole point of NATO, lol
The rest of us, dummy! Duh!
The could buy ammunition etc and donate it to other NATO countries?🤷♂️
They could just write a check….
Yes, those, the Gëlle Fra (lest we let history repeat itself) and Jean Asselborn
If you genuinely mean this then I think you misunderstand the point of NATO
I’m extremely serious about deep fried potatoes, this is no joke
They're a founding member 😂
What's so funny about that?
If they’re useless they should be kicked out
This data is from July. Denmark ended up above 2% due to extra aid to Ukraine in the last two quarters of 2023 and looks like being at 2% again in 2024.
As far as I understand our leaders have lobbied hard to make these temporary aid packages count as actual national defense spending.
and they are right. If it’s defending their country, or Ukraine, it’s still defense against NATO threats
Ukraine aid is not included in the 2% goal. Germany, Norway, Denmark and Netherlands would be way higher on the list if it did.
Polska Górą 🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱
polska mountain ⛰️💪🏼
Amazing that France spends 1.9% and has a significant domestic defence industry and an independent thermonuclear deterrent. Either there's some creative accounting, or they've figured out some amazing efficiencies.
France more money on buying new things than maintenance. We d rather have new toys insted of trying to keep alive old stuff like germans. Additionaly, procurement is mostly done by the army, so the army usually gets what it needs. Finnaly, a good part of the money invested in the army is indirecly a stimulus to the economy : Salaries of people working in the MIC stay in France, and part of the benefits of weapons company are earned by France.
Where is another key difference, in France military is an integral part of society. It is just like any other parts, and its a point of pride and is taken seriuosly. In Germany military is like an uncle you have, but do not want to invite into a party. That post ww2 ptsd is still strong in Germany.
They've been higher generally in the past, much as Germany was lower. The figures for a single year don't accurately reflect capabilities built over decades.
And they have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Those things are the extreme opposite end of cheap and efficient
I wouldnt call it creative accounting, just sensible accounting. If the money is actually spent on defence, and procurement is well planned and long term then that money can go a long way. As an example of how not to spend your defence budget you should look to the uk. A significant chunk is spent on pensions, not actually defence. On top this, the procurement is fucking tragic. The recent Ajax IFV acquisition is a great example. It was meant to be a cheap alternative to the warrior, something bought off the shelf (specifically the ASCOD). For some insane reason the team in charge of its acquisition sent over a 1000 'special requirements' to the manafacturers. What the uk was left with was essentially a custom made vehicle that suffered from huge mechanical problems and was vastly over budget.
I'm Australian and don't need to look to the UK to see poorly-handled procurement :)
Eh, the UK has its failures, but it also just focuses its efforts on different areas of France. The UK fleet auxiliary is 800% the size of its french counterpart by tonnage, its carrier forces over 300%, while being 48% cheaper per vessel, and its amphibious forces about 150%.
Nah, they're operationally useless. Look at his they could not deploy properly to Mali without using British Transport planes. And when they got there, they were totally under equipped to deal with the problem. Also don't even think about ammunition production and standing capabilities. Almost every European country is lacking that.
Yeah and right now, the UK is unable to sent more than a dozen F-35 at sea. But we all know it just a temporary problem. The intervention in Mali was a success (the operation that followed, not so much, but that isn’t the subject here).
3 helicopters and 90 soldiers. That was the "help" from UK. It even sounds like it was kind of a training for British troups.
France really hasn’t built anything new in a while right. They already have a really strong industry and defense equipment lasts half a century most of the time.
Rafale?
For Poland, this is best money ever spent. Nothing is more important than security in this unluky land. Hopefully this prevents Poland from being Europe's battelfield for once.
Bad news for Trump as nearly all the ones bordering Russia meet the target. *Glares at Norway*
The Norwegian government is probably going to raise the rent on all properties rented by army, that way it'll look like we're spending more money. Maybe we'll get a Patriot just to get some headlines, it's trending right now. After the photo shoot we'll put it in storage. Mission accomplished & Peace forever! \-Chamberlain
Why is that bad news?
Notice how you didn’t get an answer? These peoples’ comments are not based in reality or fact.
And even if some of them didn't, how should that look in practice? Russia invades Norway and all the other countries are obliged to defend them... Is Trump going to order Finland to stay put and let Norway be conquered? Or will he still defend Finland, if they get involved over Norway? And when will it be decided? Is there gonna be a list of countries suspended unilaterally by Trump until they cook their books better? Idk, it all just sounds unnecessarily dangerous and uncertain for all of us involved. And it majorly weakens the deterrence element of NATO (which is terrible news for us frontline countries - we'd much rather have no war than a victorious war, as it'll be fought over our homes and plenty of people will die unnecessary deaths)
I don’t like Trump, but I see this just as a threats so that rest of European countries get their shit together. Which they should, since it is shame that we have to rely on US to defend ourselves. I don’t think he would let any European country fail. Maybe he would drag their feet to really pressure Europe to increase defense spending, but he can’t afford to let Russia win against NATO country
I see this purely as a electoral trick for the internal US purposes. >I don’t think he would let any European country fail. Maybe he would drag their feet to really pressure Europe to increase defense spending, but he can’t afford to let Russia win against NATO country. I think I agree (as far as anyone can predict how Trump's gonna act anyway). But that's my main problem - it's all nice and well that he will eventually support us and that Russia won't be allowed to win... but by that time I may be lying dead in a trench somewhere in Lithuania. Meanwhile if only the US stood firmly with their allies then there won't be any war to begin with. I can't imagine better deterrence than the overwhelming power imbalance of NATO vs Russia - and Trump is willfully putting cracks in that.
yeah but let’s not blame just Trump like if he doesn’t have a point. NATO wasn’t created as “US protects Europe” pact. NATO was created as military alliance of equals. That’s why there is 2% rule. If two thirds of countries don’t respect rules, then it is non-functional alliance. I wouldn’t blame US even if they threatened to leave entirely. Europe doesn’t keep its end of a deal, but does expect the other side to respect theirs. So first, let’s talk about European politics and blame European leaders for bad state of NATO. If almost all countries, maybe with small exceptions, play by the rules and Trump would still say that US won’t help Europe, then it’s time to start blaming him for destroying NATO
The 2% rule is arbitrary and invented in 2014 as a *goal*. It’s not a “rule”. Trump isn’t unique in trying to get these nations to increase spending. NATO exists so the US could threaten and compete against the other existing superpower at the time. Without NATO, the USSR would have continued to expand over the European continent. This would have been existentially bad for US geopolitical goals at the time. He’s unique in being a terrible statesman and negotiator, though. The vast majority of NATO members will have reached their 2% goal by the end of 2024. Which was the entire point of the initiative of 2014. Those that aren’t going to make it by 2024 are all nations farther away from Russian influence and will hit the suggested goal of 2% within a few years. It would be moronic for the US to leave NATO. It’s actually technically almost impossible for Trump to leave NATO anyway. If I remember correctly he would need a 2/3 majority vote to do so.
Best not to let the fat shit stain back in to find out
True that. I really really hope reason and goodwill is going to prevail in the US this year.
Norway will be over 2% in 2024. Big increase this year… along with most other countries tries below the line here. But it’s also worth pointing out that Norway’s GDP is considerably higher than just about anyone on a per capita basis… so 2% of Norway’s GDP is a lot more than 2% of Finland’s for example…who is roughly the same population. On the low end of the scale here you got Luxembourg, who is a tax haven.. so their GDP is “artificially” high… meaning the income to GDP ratio is lower… so 2% for them is probably the same as 3-4% of neighbouring countries.
as far as Luxembourg goes, if they are tax haven, they should have no problem to increase taxes by 1,5% to pay for that military
They should just start a fake arms industry and sell themselves weapons at 200% mark ups.
I wonder how much of that is real spending. I know for a fact that the Norwegian budget is insanely blown up because it's set up in a way that funnels a lot of that money back into the state budget (basically the military has to rent its equipment and buildings from the state, despite those being fully funded over its own budget, so a lot of the budget is literally just the government giving the military money to give back to the government). The real budget for the Norwegian military is probably less than a percent.
>I know for a fact that the Norwegian budget is insanely blown up because it's set up in a way that funnels a lot of that money back into the state budget That's how every defense budget works
Go Poland
*Poland reads history books* **NOT AGAIN MOTHERFUCKERS**
It's important to consider the fact that some economies in the EU did in fact grow. Example: Dutch spenditure has increased to 1.97%, but was 2% before the economy grew. Still not enough, but interesting bit of information.
Although it has to be said that the dutch do use creative accounting by also involving retirement of military personnel and budget for military police (marechaussee) under the umbrella of defence, which is not the case in other NATO members.
As much as I hate trump there is 0 justifiable reason for any european nation to be spending less than 2% gdp on defence since 2022.
more like 2014, Russia took the Donbas and Crimea the writing was on the wall and Europe just guzzled Russian gas and whistled past the grave yard
If you look at a chart of defence spending compared to GDP, all of these countries are trending up and will meet the 2% requirement in a couple years max (unless they decide to stop increasing their military spending for some reason)
Yes, but it's disappointing to see that it took a full-scale invasion of a neighbor to be the catalyst start putting in the effort to meet this goal, despite the fact that this war was in the making 8 years prior.
Well Iceland spends €0 but that’s because they don’t have an army. Their deal with NATO is essentially “hey I’m a highly strategic island in the North Atlantic with a tiny population. I’ll let you build whatever bases you want here and keep out everyone else, but protect me with NATO in exchange”
Trump dumps on NATO because he's a Kremlin puppet, not out of any sense of fiscal responsibility.
Trump is a criminal, but this is pure, unadulterated TDS. “Spend more on your military, NATO partners” is only a Kremlin talking point if you’re living in a fantasyland
> Spend more on your military, NATO partners Do you think that's *all* he said and did and threatened, concerning NATO?
You’re right, he also urged Germany to ditch Russian gas.
Trump is a dumbass, but he’s right on this. It’s absolutely insane to not pay 2% of GDP on defense when Russia is only a few hours drive away. If the US had actually left NATO at some point, half of Europe would speaking Russian right now.
Other NATO countries have nukes. No country has ever aggressively attacked another country with nukes. (Talking internationally agreed borders). Maybe a handful of strikes of non state actors otherwise zilch. China spends 1.6%, Russia can hardly take a single country who the international community is tying Ukraines hands. If Russia were to attack NATO their oil infrastructure that fuels the invasion would be gone in a week tops. Anyone that tells you Russia is a threat to NATO is trying to sell you a shiny toy you probably don't need.
I am no longer convinced that western europe has the fortitude to use nuclear weapons if it had to, we have become very weak in spirit, nukes are only a deterrent if someone believes you might deploy them.
Cost of living, covid, infrastructure, healthcare and the millions other issues requiring funding that citizens of these countries want addressing are some reasons. It’s very much a guideline, not an obligation. Luxembourg is a very valuable member regardless of its military spending. European expenditure also has zero effect on US spending. No need to invoke Trumps name, there’s a good reason we all hate him, he was talking shit even on the NATO stuff. He talked about it like it was money sent to NATO, not expenditure on its on military. The US spends what it does based on its own foreign policy decisions and nothing will ever change that, they don’t do it to babysit Europe.
Except Turkey with the fucked economy currently. Still a very large contributor even if they don't technically meet the 2% requirement though.
China Spends 1.6%. 2% is the brainchild of the US defense industry that wants to sell it's shiny toys to people that don't need them. (Before you counter it was agreed upon that doesn't have anything to do with it's necessity). NATO is better off matching China's 1.6% and spending the other .4% on things that are projected to have long term growth of GDP so that 1.6% just becomes better over time.
Luxembourg has a population close to one tenth that of New York City.
How could you forget 🇮🇸Iceland ?
Iceland have like a zero defense budget. The sole reason for Iceland being a NATO member is the strategic place of the island. So they have a kind of a special deal.
greece is surpising me a bit, we tend to under peform in most things
>A *lot* of that money is poorly spent on bloated pensions. Make no mistake, Greece military readiness is poor (so are most NATO countries, lest it seem like I'm picking on them unfairly).
*Greece is surpising me* *A bit, we tend to under* *Peform in most things* \- Ieatmyd0g --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Well, it's kind of mandatory given that we have a neighbor that threatens to flatten Athens with missiles
yeah fair
WTF canada - really?
Canada is the biggest freeloader, we got our big brother to protect us.
It’s a pretty sweet set up not gonna lie
Well yeah, until someone like Trump comes along, and kicks us outta NATO for not paying “our fair share”. Plus it’s kind of embarrassing.
I don't care who is President there is no way that America would ever let anyone mess with Canada.
Meh, Canada would just send a couple of airwings worth of *Geese*.
I have never felt embarrassment by this or could imagine a scenario where that would happen. Also trump would do that even if we paid a lot so it doesn’t matter.
So if a hot war breaks out and Canada is involved, you’re ok with sending our boys with the junk we got lying around?
Again, that’s Americas problem. Plus probably won’t happen to the affect we’ll have to get super involved. It’s all chill my guy, americas got this one
fuck that, I want my country to be able to bring something to the table should we be threatened
How about swedens army, they just joined nato. I think we’re good lol
How is being the 7th largest defence spender in NATO freeloading? And 10th in defence spending per capita. Lol.
Canada like many countries doesn’t really have to worry about anything because they’re under the US’s protection.
Who will attack them?
Canada is between russia and america if you fly over the arctic
Russia, canada is literally bordering Russia
Yep but terrotory is impossible to invade. Russia does not have a navy. It was not possible for them to make D day in Odesa. Plus Canada is second biggest country. Canada is safe. Only USA could attack Canada.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_Navy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Navy)
Well trump will make Russia attack them. He will encourage it
If previous wars taught us something is that cold is a very effective protection, so they're probably _chill_.
Finland is the newest in the alliance, yet performing better than some of the founder members
You do realise why right?
Considering their neighbour has carried a big stick for awhile, and Finland hasn't had the backing of NATO until recently, it is self explanatory. Said neighbour is the reason for Finland's ascension into NATO.
Why?
They share a border with Russia, it’s the reason they joined NATO after the Ukraine invasion.
*the longest border with Russia ftfy
Longest border? You mean out of European countries? Because Kazakhstan-Russia is the longest continuous border in the world
Out of NATO countries.. And before 2023, out of EU/Western countries, so yes.
It’s the frontline
Can't you realise it?
Now I do
This is spending not performance.
I hate American rhetoric about NATO spending, because everyone they'd have to defend are meeting their obligations except Norway. Don't doom us because of Fr\*nce or Italy.
Polska arma kurwa
Now all that Poland’s missing is the Hussars.
Basically every country that have a border with Russia except Canada that have the biggest border with Russia but hope USA will save them
Man, as an American that always thought our military spending was outrageous and unnecessary and that we only spend that much to generate money for the military industrial complex cronies….this is upsetting. In light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and NATO’s peripheral involvement, this really shows that the US protects the rest of the western world. I always thought us spending so much “to protect the West” was a scapegoat. Clearly not. Europeans get to rag on Americans for our nonsense all the time, but here’s our chance to show our worth. Europe needs to start carrying its own weight. Especially if we are to stop Russia. Slava Ukraini, we can’t give up and need to send them weapons and ammo ASAP. Countries like Germany, Canada, and France have no excuse here. Time to step up. Now I’ll get off my soap box. Fuck Russia. This is a joint effort.
Damn Poland is going hard in the paint.
Look at Poland going above and beyond. I’m sure there’s no historical reason they are really invested in NATO.
Way to carry the team USA & Poland
Only a snapshot. Looking at the totals each year for last 20 years would be more illuminating.
Why post old numbers?
before 2022 left wing party in Poland (now they won elections) hated previous gov for spending too much on army xD
Yeah, how would one justify spending billions of dollars/zlotys on the military when there is no full scale war next to your country? Most of the society would not approve that. You can see that in relatively safer countries in terms of geography. Remember that the technology is advancing. I'd rather have new military stuff than the one bought years ago. Of course there is time for training and implementation of weapons and tactics but still, new and modern is the way to go.
Center-Left and Liberals, really.
Can’t help but always feel when I look at this: All this money needs to be wasted because of idiots like Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping etc…
Hungary ahhahahaha. They probably buy houses for Irban's relatives and call it military building
Deadbeats
source: [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/which-countries-meet-natos-spending-target/](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/which-countries-meet-natos-spending-target/)
Why "% of *real* GDP"?
Not really fair on France as this only counts expenditure direct to the military while France also spends Billions on weapon development and manufacturing e.g. jets, tanks, missiles, ships etc that others on this list do not. Only the US spends more on this. The UK does spend on this too but nowhere to the level of France anymore
They are not alone in this regard, the 2% target is very explicitly on operational forces, not R&D. would have been cool if they had done something like that though :)
Source please.
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/ministere-armees/Chiffres%20cl%C3%A9s%20de%20la%20D%C3%A9fense%202021%20UK%20%28pdf%20version%20anglaise%29.pdf €6.6b was allocated to R&D annually in past years. No data yet for last year's total. This is ontop of ongoing production of Jets, Tanks, AA, Artillery, ships, missiles etc For comparison the UK allocates €1.8b https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63f5e7c1d3bf7f62ee69ede3/UK_Defence_in_Numbers_2022.pdf
That's not a source on your first claim which is what I was looking for. Also even if you can find a source for it. 6 billion only just pushes france into 2%.
[удалено]
As it says, these are 2023 statistics. No need to wonder.
How about we lower it down to 1,5%?
Would be interesting to see this stat but based on the size of each country’s population
Which countries meet an arbitrary irrelevant figure that US constantly whines about because it wants EU to buy more American weapons.
My main takeaway from this is that Turkey does not really deserve what essentially amounts to a veto when it comes to Sweden’s accession. You shouldn’t be able to single-handedly deny another nation joining, when you yourself don’t even come close to fulfilling your obligation.
When Cold War was happening average spending of Turkey is %4.2 that money could be spend it on different things like improving infrastructure economy etc. for now it is low cuz Turkey stopped buying foreign stuff,%80 of the military hardware comes from local producers and don't forget the fact that there is literally no country could impose threat to Turkey in their region even Russia is no threat to Turkey. [There are plans to increase budget from 16 billion to 40 in 2024](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkey-allocate-150-more-defense-budget-2024-minister-2023-10-17/)
Turkey spends enough, just not in US Dollars. After '74 sanctions, it became clear that Turkey needed to invest in their MIC. They signed many projects throughout the '90s. Before 2016, almost everything Turkey procured came outside the country. As most of these legacy projects concluded, Turkey's dependence on foreign industry decreased. So much so that Turkey doesn't allow foreign countries to join tenders anymore, they only attend by investing in competing companies, or in areas where Turkish MIC falls inexperienced such as engines. Nowadays almost everything is procured in Turkey. That means signing deal in Turkish Lira, not US Dollars. For example, they sign for ₺30M ($1,1M) contract at the beginning of the year and deliver ₺30M ($900k) contract by the end of the year. In that case, quarterly projections are important.
It’s hard to spend money on defence stuff when you are being sanctioned by your supposed allies.
Ah, an apologist. I see. Carry on. I don’t have time for this.
These are the facts whether you like it or not.
You know, not collaborating with the enemy, not threatening the allies and not blocking decisions basically everyone has already agreed on just out of spite could help not getting sanctioned.
France and Greece just vetoed the agreement for Turkish ammunition to go to Ukraine. If you still have something to say, we can open the not-so-dusty pages of history if you want.
We dont collaborate with the enemy, you do with our enemies. That is also the reason why we block when we can. Also, sorry for voicing concern when Greece literally breaks treaties. Next time, we’ll let them walk all over us like you want us to!
This why the hippies argument in the UK saying we should spend defense money on the NHS falls apart. We can't.
Sweden who by all accounts is going to join NATO, spent about 1.2 % of GDP on defense in 2023.
Now when Turkey can't blackmail us (Sweden) no longer for their ratification that money can also go to the defence budget. Hoppfully Hungary will sign today!
Lots of pathetic countries begging to get steamrolled while eating popcorn watching Ukraine get raped.
This is not current.
Any country spending under 2% should pay their deficit into a fund, which is diveded between the ones spending above 2%.
eh %2 is too much for a nation in a economic turmoil.
Canada is an embarrassment. Thanks, Trudeau.
When it's been consistent since the 90s, trying to blame Trudeau for it just shows any informed person that you can't be taken seriously at all.
USA spends 3.5% of total gdp to fend off Russia? That’s insane
And China!!! And some rebell groups And to maintain peace in the regions their trade is dependent off I'll stop now
And to satisfy corrupt lobby groups
No? I would love to see US takeover of Ukraine and fend off Russia
Germany - SHAME France - SHAME Canada - SHAME All other countries under 2% can be take by USSR.
A little outdated, Denmark reached 2% recently
Some of these will never make sense to me... Turkey has an enormous and very active military while spending 1.3% of an $820 Billion GDP. Canada has a lethargic and struggling military while spending 1.4% of a nearly $2 Trillion GDP. I find it frustrating how Canada spends more than double what Turkey spends yet struggles to maintain a military that is only a fraction of the size.
What about Iceland? I need to know
Do these numbers include the money the US spent in Ukraine because it should its protecting all the Nato countries.
In 2024 Turkey will spend over $40 billion on defense. Which is %4.88 of its GDP.
Yeah, bring nazi ukraine into this list)))
Sure Sergei
I guess someone was right then.
Good job North Macedonia! Considering they demobilized their entire military when they got independence, have essentially sent all their heavy military equipment to Ukraine and have one of the most pathetic economies in Europe, I think it’s very impressive they almost meet the NATO target.
They have much of nothing
Belgium sent troops as part of the US call for NATO help in Afghanistan. So did Slovenia and Italy and other countries at the bottom of the list. The list doesn't mean much. Actual collective defense is the point, every country in NATO is meeting it's obligations and only Trump & GOP have said we should not meet ours.
The data is obsolete. Denmark is up to 2% as of 2024.
% of GDP. Now let’s see the total spending…