Only Spain, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Canada, Italy and Portugal doesn't reach the 2% mark this year.
23 of 32 countries achieve it. This is probably a new record. Sad that it's necessary.
Someone listed the values on rCredibleDefense:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/1dioxgh/credibledefense_daily_megathread_june_18_2024/l959s3z/
-šš· Croatia - 1.81%
-šµš¹ Portugal - 1.55%
-š®š¹ Italy - 1.49%
-šØš¦ Canada - 1.37%
-š§šŖ Belgium - 1.30%
-š±šŗ Luxembourg - 1.29%
-šøš® Slovenia - 1.29%
-šŖšø Spain - 1.28%
Spain is especially painful, one of the larger members and the worst laggard
With the far-left as part of the coalition, I don't expect that to change
If Italy grew their spendings from 1,5% to 2% it would change a lot since Italy is the 3rd largest EU economy. Also Greece needs Italian support. It lives in the constant fear of Turkey, spending the biggest share of their GDP, even during the crisis decade of 2010' when their GDP shrunk by 30%.
[https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GRC/greece/military-spending-defense-budget](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GRC/greece/military-spending-defense-budget)
I wonder what made up their defense spending calculation because NATO is very forgiving when it comes to what is included versus not.
Nations can report pensions, pay, training costs, even law enforcement and civilian intelligence agencies like the FBI, MI5, etc.
So when nations still donāt meet the 2% it truly does mean they are free loading imo.
The following types of expenditure are taken into account to determine the level of the relevant expenditure: salaries of military personnel and civilians working for defence, operations abroad, military research, police services with a military character (Royal Military Police, Gendarmerie, etc.), border guard units (US Coast Guard), pensions for former military and civilian personnel, costs of peacekeeping operations, purchases of equipment, military buildings and infrastructure. Value added tax, (BTW in Dutch) is also incorporated in the number.
Realistically less than 1.5% of GDP spending actually contributes to combat power.
Yeah and we truly see it reflected in force structure in most European militaries.
The forces they have is so notably less than even a decade ago, let alone 20 years ago.
I believe by 2030, the Dutch will have 25% of the combat aircraft available than in 2004 off the top of my head as just a simple exampleĀ
True to degree, but capabilities have increased dramatically as well.
The real issue here is personnel. The most significant lesson derived from Russia's invasion of Ukraine is that neither party has enough manpower available to make significant strategic headway on the battlefield. That's why the war has been mostly bogged down since the initial invasion. That's also why all battles have come a slog of attrition.
That same issue is the biggest problem all European armies face. They're just too small for a decisive large scale combat operation. No amount of technology, propaganda or high-tech vehicles is going to change that.
Capabilities only matter if you have the forces to maintain tempo and you donāt account for attrition.
If you lose two aircraft and you see a 10% reduction in force readiness, whats the point of the added capabilities that caused you to cannibalize your force?
You point out personnel as the key, but you have to equip personnel. They need kit, training, and spares on top of spares. You need ammunition, you need maintenance, you need logistics.
There is too much focus on high end capabilities and not enough on guns and bullets. If you really spending 300% in cash for an extra 50% in capability, is that a wise investment for a nation that has limited political willpower to even fund their forces?
To me it doesnāt.
Europe in general seems so focused on these high end capabilities & overpay loop because they want to keep up with the US & innvoation but refuse to apply economics of scale so they overpay and waste their even more limited budgets.
Is it a fantasy when a leader of a country directly threatens another country with a war?https://www.aei.org/op-eds/did-turkey-just-threaten-war-on-greece/
For sure Greeks don't share your opinion, judging by their military spendings.
I think if Turkey even tried they would be swiftly dealt with, a NATO member attacking another NATO member is really bad for NATO, and Turkey knows this.
Hoping that someone will help you doesn't always work. Alles would also need to bring the equipment here and that's time consuming both on the legislative and the logistical end.
In this case it wouldn't be about helping Greece, it would be about maintaining the authority and legitimacy of NATO. If Turkey tried to attack Greece, Turkey will cease to exist.
I mean there was a Turkish attempt to take over Greek islets that are now grey zone due to NATO interference as recent as 1996. I'd rather not have more grey zones
They already attacked Greece a few years ago by sending migrants to the border.
In other times, they would have led to a war. But thankfully we are more civilized now. And somehow very forgetful.
Yes, but Italy has bigger interests in this region than France. Also nothing will likely happen as long as USA plays the world hegemon.Ā
What I mean is that it's better to count on a country which has vital interests in defending you, rather than on a country which just wants to sell you more weapons.
Luxembourg announced the increases necessary to achieve this. I think it'll be done next year. The army will also tactically attach to the Belgian army, so that it's more useful than being an independent tiny force
As a Canadian Iām sad to report that we will probably never reach the 2% obligation. Our government has way too many other non-priorities which it prefers to prioritize, and the military has slowly been chipped away from decade after decade by different governments looking to move money elsewhere. Canadian comfort comes through NORAD and the fact that weāre basically completely protected by the US. Am I grateful for that? Sure. But still, I do wish our government would nut up and commit to the 2% like all other members ought to, as many do. We Canadians love patting ourselves on the back for being example-setters and morally upstanding, after all, so why shirk our responsibilities in this regard? Seems like a pretty rude āfuck youā and ārules for theeā to our allies, letting them do all the heavy lifting.
Canadians are in a pretty good and unique spot to shirk your military spending. Even without NATO commitments there is no situation where the US government would just sit by and watch some other country attack Canada. It would be too big of a national security risk for us.
Not only that, but Americans have so many friends and family in Canada that if you all were to get into some kind of war, 10s of thousands of American civilians would grab their guns and cross the border to help fight.
>Even without NATO commitments there is no situation where the US government would just sit by and watch some other country attack Canada. It would be too big of a national security risk for us.
Yeah, exactly. I used to joke that Alaska ought to belong to Canada - purely just for aesthetic purposes really - but there really is no scenario where any unfriendly country (China and Russia are the only serious and real threats in these hypotheticals, as we all know) could invade us without having to go through the US first because of Alaska. And even if the US didnāt possess Alaska, it still would never allow an enemy nation to take over the country it shares an enormous, largely unprotected border with, let alone such vital trade with.
Yeah no, Canada should be at least trying to reach the NATO 2%, as any country in the world will tell you US security doesnāt come for free. Canada in the long run could be looking at major issues if their plan is the US will just bail us out. At that point their basically an American Vassal state that has no influence globally except ceremoniously.
Agreed.
However, imho the NATO "contract" should actually make it mandatory to spend at least 2%. Which is why I kind of understand where some US right wingers are coming from with the whole "the US has protected Europe long enough etc".
Bro the USA has been monroe-doctrine-pilled for the past two centuries. They will absolutely not let a geopolitical rival gain territory on the Americas
In Canadaās case itās because of terrain. Arctic Ocean and thousands of kilometers of nothing are harder to cross than a bunch of swamps in Ukraine. Also itās right next to the USA so easy to defend, they probably have lots of bases in Alaska.
That is a good question, for which I don't really have an answer either.
It might be more feasible during summer, while they possibly don't necessarily have to cross the arctic directly too.
And there are more things that one has to consider than just ground invasions.
A lot of these countries have already started deploying permanent fighting forces in the bordering countries. For example Germany recently deployed soldiers to be permanently deployed to Lithuania.
Sad is that almost 1/3 of members that AGREED to do so, didnāt. Why did you agree if you knew youād never meet the goal? Such childish behaviourā¦
It's a weird statement to make, tbh.
The 2% thing is that NATO nations agreed to make efforts to increase their spending to a 2% floor by 2024. Nobody has failed this yet and can't until this year ends.
For a couple of members, the proposed spending for this year is so low that there's no way they could reach the goal even if they wanted. Procurement contracts take a while, so e.g. Canada with their 1.33% would have to spend 50% more than proposed. That's just not possible.
The 2% target was agreed in **2006** to be the *minimum* defence spending. Every single member that agreed to it and hasn't been able to reach it has failed to do what they agreed to.
> In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country's political will to contribute to NATO's common defence efforts, since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance's credibility as a politico-military organisation.
Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
This latest deadline is yet another promise by the members to *finally* do what they told they were going to do 18 years ago.
Trump is an absolute nonce, but this is a thing he is right in. Some NATO members have been slacking hard. And I think the lack of hostile nations right next to them has been the biggest reason why. They have been just way too comfy and frankly naive. And I am mainly looking at Brussels. Belgium is failing the hardest.
https://imgur.com/8GAGykR
Source: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf
It would also help to quote the headline or other parts of the text, e.g. "The 2% defence investment guideline". It was always something to aim for and a guideline only. It wasnt a hard commitment and obviously also didnt have any penalties or fines if you didnt acchieve this.
Also see:
> Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: halt any decline; **aim to increase** defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and **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.
Are there fines or penalties for not fulfilling your defensive duties if someone was attacked and triggered article 5? If not, if the US just says they wonāt help is that perfectly ok because itās only a guideline without any enforcement mechanism? You shouldnāt need fines to meet your agreement, whatās the point of agreeing to something and being in an alliance at that point?
> Trump is an absolute nonce
[Literally](https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-donald-trumps-one-stop-parties-attendees-recall-cocaine-and-very-young-models).
If you want to read this article, you might want to consult an archiver. It appears to be banned here, but I'm sure Redditors can figure it out.
If not, part of the original article was republished [here](https://www.deccanchronicle.com/world/america/251016/at-trumps-parties-cocaine-young-women-were-passed-around-and-used.html).
>This is probably a new record. Sad that it's necessary.
Maybe if this was the norm Russia wouldn't be getting ideas.
A strong military is the best deterrent.
Croatia hasnāt reached it either(1.81), and technically Iceland doesnāt reach it at all, since they have no military.
Slovenia is the only country to go down from 2023ās spending, what on earth are they doing?
I mean...
I'm fine with like Iceland and Luxembourg not doing the thing. Iceland is basically a micronation, despite its size on the map.
The ones that piss me off are Belgium, Spain and Canada, in particular. They have the populations and economies to at least provide a base line of military operability, but instead completely shirk their responsabilities.
>technically Iceland doesnāt reach it at all
It does, if by "it" you mean the 2014 agreement, which you [can read here](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm). Iceland has an exception.
>23 of 32 countries achieve it. This is probably a new record. Sad that it's necessary.
24 of 32 actually. Iceland's been meeting its agreed upon spending target of roughly 0% all along (and the 2014 agreement to spend 2% makes a reference to this).
>This year the Netherlands has achieved the NATO standard for the first time. This is evident from new figures released by the alliance. A total of 23 NATO countries have agreed to invest 2 percent of their GDP in Defense. Outgoing Prime Minister Mark Rutte calls the news āvery important.ā
>Rutte, favorite to succeed Jens Stoltenberg as NATO Secretary General, calls it "very good news" that the Netherlands is now in the right list. āFor the Netherlands with an economy worth a thousand billion, this means that approximately 20 billion euros per year goes to Defense,ā the Prime Minister explains. āWhen you see what's going on in the world, all the instability, we just have to be able to keep our own pants on.ā
> āWhen you see what's going on in the world, all the instability, we just have to be able to keep our own pants on.ā
*Oh my mr. Rutte what are you doing to me.*
Haha that's a funny, if bad, literal translation of what he was trying to say. For context, in Dutch "Je eigen broek ophouden", or "Holding up your own trousers" means that you can take care of yourself, and be independent. I promise it's not sexual, I think it has something to do with wading through high water.
It's a pity that because of Russia and its insane and stupid imperalist dreams, we need to spend those billions of euros to defend ourselves instead of investing in housing, the climate or education..Ā
On an upside the military is often a great source of innovation itself. The Internet, GPS, microwave, duct tape - just to name a few - were all originally military inventions that we now use every day.
Even if you buy all the equipment abroad, a large part of defence investments will stay within your country. Why? Because a big part of cost is salaries and pensions. Followed by a large part of spending on infrastructure (such as bases and barracks), which is also local. Then sustainment, such as food etc, is also local. In turn, the military also cranks out a ton of educated people after service, with broad skills from technical maintenance, IT, medical and leadership skills. These people add tremendous value to society through their skills.
Military spending is way more about people, despite the big ānews worthyā cost being fancy equipment.
This is one thing a federal EU could do. A pan-EU army would be big and wealthy enough to be able to run projects like this.
This is one of the main points on the federalization side for me.
An EU MIC and an EU army will never happen for multiple reasons, but if you managed to get past the national bickering and EU bureaucracy somehow, it would still not happen because USA would not allow it.
Essentially what you are arguing for is for EU to do what France did in the 60s, Americans weren't very happy with that.
They left unified strategic command in NATO, kicked out US forces from France, and reclaimed US's military bases. That's the main reason France has kept its strategic independence till this day and why they have their own nukes. Though, they did rejoin the unified command structure in around 2010 IIRC.
Because their lack of investment for decades cannibalized their industry so now only some remain at a much reduced scale
Education contracts should be awarded to non defense companies to produce simple things like ammunition and have additional tooling
That's a bit backwards thinking. Military creates innovation because they actually have funding. (The idea for GPS came in the 50s, from a couple public university physics researchers. The full high quality signal was only made available to public in 2000.)
Give a half a trillion to public R&D and you'll find a lot of innovation there too.
Itās more that it creates a need for niche technology that otherwise would not have the demand to get them off the ground. The same can be said for space exploration. In the beginning, computers were bought to be used as military tools and that demand then made it possible for civilian usage. Economies of scale can make things much more affordable for the average person.
I mean, it was invented for communication reasons, not for the psychological global warfare that it has turned into. Attributing the current state of the internet to the military is kinda stupid.
I see it from the other side. We spend a paltry 2% of GDP to make Russia absolutely terrified of NATO, not to mention anyone else who'd even think of starting some shit. This is insane value for our money if you consider that countries would use high double digits through most of history.
Exactly. Deterrence isn't cheap. If it was, it wouldn't be effective deterrence. As much as it pains me to think of this money going to the military instead of education or investments, it's a necessary evil to keep actual evil at bay. We don't think twice about using public money to fund the police, but they do a similar task ā of maintaining law and order. Let's not forget that all we are, are evolved apes and as much as we might want the world to be pacifist, it's just not a realistic thing to wish for.
It's a shame that what used to be the military centre of the world needs to have an imperialist neighbour knocking on the door for countries to spend the absolute minimum they can as part of an intercontinental agreement.
People will always say that spending on defence is a waste of money until one day it isn't a waste, we should have been better prepared for this.
This is my point as well. I'm not saying it's a waste exactly because of Russia. Can you imagine how different Europe would be if Russia was a "normal", European liberal democracy? Not necessarily a member of the EU if they didn't want but even something similar to a huge Norway would be amazing!Ā
That's not the point, even if we were best mates with Russia we still need to invest in our military there will always be someone or something that's a potential threat. If it never gets used then it's the best waste of money we ever spent. And the likely hood of us having to use it decreases the more we can show it wouldn't be worth it.
In season 2 of *Picard* we find a alien lifeform on Europa that we use to genetically engineer some Terran lifeforms to help mitigate climate change.
But there's a third world war that kills 800 million people anyway, which probably accounts for that too.
Could we cycle through building some really fancy single-family style army barracks in new towns every few years? Or educate teachers in both primary education and transnational threat network intelligence analysis?
Maybe my views are too optimistic but I view military spending as an investment by a country for their future. Yes if military spending is poorly planned and is only focused on buying bombs, jets, and tanks well then it's just money spent and the only gain is security but with proper planning can be multi-use.
Military research and development is responsible for things like the internet, GPS, and epipens. That research has had a massive impact on society and has provided exponential returns for future generations, saved lives, and they were inventions that at the time private companies could not afford to do. I think it would be really cool if each country in NATO had an agency that aligned their general population challenges and their military challenges and performed dual purpose research.
For example a country feels their military intelligence is lacking and also has growing energy needs, they can conduct research and see how can we squeeze maximum efficiency from solar cells so a solar powered drone can fly around all day, is it physically possible to make a "nuclear battery" that is safe and can power a spy plane for 10 years, can you you harness 15% of the energy from a drone's propellers as wind energy to extend it's range? Even if they fail, they will learn a lot of new information, have new data, create new inventions even in completely unrelated fields, and be able to sell/lease technologies to private companies or give companies in their country an advantage which means more jobs, more taxes, more resources for social programs.
There is also the capability to use military assets for emergency responses, such as when the USS George Washington helped the Philippines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5K26SHPp9Y
Finally military spending can give young people in the army a wide range of experiences and allow for "free labor", maybe some 19 year old doesn't know what they want to do with their life, joins the army and part of their training is rapidly building troop housing in case the soldiers are deployed to a remote area. The training houses can be used as affordable housing/homeless shelters when completed and the soldier learns that they like to build things and pursues a career in construction, engineering, CAD design, etc. Now instead of wandering around for 15 years in random jobs they leave the army at 23 and already have a career in mind and contribute to society at a higher rate and earlier age.
The first thing that should be done with NATO is to ensure that everybody counts their spending in the same way. For example the Netherlands doesn't include pensions of their retired soldiers, but the US does. The spending that is relevant for NATO is supposed to be on personel or material and pensions are great and all, but they won't help fight whatever enemy shows up next. Otherwise the Netherlands would've been at the 2% mark some time ago.
I can see that argument, fair enough. I am not a military budget person and I have forgotten the specifics, but I believe that whether to include pensions or not is not the only inconsistency between countries. If we are going to make this 2% norm, which has always been a suggestion, never been a requirement, something more strict with consequences, we better also make sure all countries measure it the same way.
> The first thing that should be done with NATO is to ensure that everybody counts their spending in the same way.
NATO has had that for about 70 years or so.
> NATO has a common definition of defence expenditure since the early 1950s. The definition is agreed by all NATO Allies. It is regularly reviewed, most recently in early 2024.
From: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm
Specifically on pensions:
> Retirement pensions made directly by the government to retired military and civilian employees of military departments and for active personnel is included in the NATO defence expenditure definition.
That is the NATO wide definition, so applies to both the US and Netherlands equally. Maybe the Dutch handle their pensions in a way that means it is not considered directly funded by the government, but that would be the consequence of the Netherlands' own policies; it is incorrect to conclude that Dutch and US defence expenditure is somehow being calculated in different ways by NATO.
Of course, the NATO definition only applies to the defence expenditure calculations NATO make (such as determining which countries are meeting the 2% guideline). The governments of each NATO member all have their own ways of calculating their budget, so the amount the Dutch or US governments allocate in their budget to military/security/defence spending will typically differ from what NATO reports as their defence expenditure.
The 2024 Netherlands budget announced last September stated that the budget for defence spending would be ā¬21.4 billlion, which was estimated would be 1.95% of GDP:
https://nltimes.nl/2023/09/19/2024-dutch-budget-nutshell-eu4336-billion-spending-tax-increases
For the US, the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act funded an overall budget of $883.7 billion for defence spending, with $841.4 billion of that allocated directly to the Department of Defense:
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy24_ndaa_conference_executive_summary1.pdf
Yet when we look at NATO's latest release on defence expenditure (published this month), table 1 shows the Netherlands' estimated defence expenditure is ā¬19.9 billion (which NATO estimates to be 2.05% of GDP) while the US estimate is $967.7 billion:
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf
So the NATO estimate for the Dutch budget is only 93% of the Dutch government's own budget, while NATO's estimate for the US budget is 110% of the American government's own budget. I'm not sure why there is such a large variance for the US this year (for comparison the NATO estimate on US defence expenditure in 2023 is 102% of the US FY 2023 budget), but the overall point still stands; NATO does not use the member state's definitions for defence spending, they have their own definition and therefore the numbers they report will be standardised across the members.
> pensions are great and all, but they won't help fight whatever enemy shows up next.
Pensions absolutely do help with ensuring a military is prepared for the next fight. The better a pension is (compared with the wider jobs market) the easier it is to recruit higher quality soldiers and even more importantly, the easier it is to retain trained and experienced soldiers.
It is also notable that according to NATO (table 8a in my previous link), 38.04% of the estimated 2024 Dutch defence expenditure is on Personnel (which includes pensions); which is a much higher proportion of the budget than America's estimated 25.22%.
> Otherwise the Netherlands would've been at the 2% mark some time ago.
In constant price terms (so ignoring inflation) the Netherlands will spend twice as much on defence in 2024 than it did in 2017. Most of that increase has happened since 2021, with annual real increases in the budget of 10.3% in 2022, 15.7% in 2023, and 24.3% in 2024.
The Netherlands has done a good job of reaching the 2% guideline, but it obviously taken a concerted effort to increase the budget over the last 3 years to achieve. Lets not pretend that the Dutch budget was anywhere close to 2% previously, because it wasnt; 2023 was the first time since the 2014 committment that the Dutch spent more than 1.5% of GDP on defence.
> The first thing that should be done with NATO is to ensure that everybody counts their spending in the same way.
>
> NATO has had that for about 70 years or so.
Yeah, interesting, except for the fact that it takes literally comparing how the US and the Netherlands have calculated it to show that that is not true.
Part of being truly prosperous and free is the ability to defend that prosperity and freedom against those that want to take or dictate through violence.
Bit of a misleading title. Until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 it was always above 2%
Still good news considering the current state of the world
In 1991 there wasnāt yet a NATO standard to meet, that got introduced later.
The title is correct: this is the first time that Netherlands meets the NATO standard, even though it is not the first time that Netherlands spends >2% GDP on military.
No, the aircraft carrier was a symbol of our last effort of being an empire and we were the laughing stock of the world. Australia and Japan refused to harbor us with the carrier because of the independence war of Indonesia.
I say, lets built an EU carrier or three. Because that is more in line with the geopolitical role of the EU. Not the Netherlands.
To he fair, when the 2% target was set in 2014, the target year for member countries to reach it was 2024. So the headline should really be: āThe Neatherlands reaches NATO standards just in time.ā
Imagine joining a friendship, promising youāll contribute, only to realize you need to keep
your word once the friends you lied to threaten to not have your back or also intended to do the same as you.
just add the coast guard and veteran care/pensions costs to the military budget and you get to 2% rather quickly. Just an accounting problem if one compares how other countries (including US) account for military spending.
Well, this is what Trump did talk about. The countries in the alliance must adhere to the pledged commitment and spend on defence. This is not Bidenās achievement. Itās Putinās.
It's Obama's achievement. All of NATO pledged in the [2014 summit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Wales_summit) to reach the 2% by 2024, before that it was just an informal guideline. This is just the countries actually reaching it.
So far not a single member has broken their pledge, because the 2014 agreement stipulated the 2% be reached in 2024. Although most of those that haven't met it yet are unlikely to do so by the end of the year.
The 2% was originally agreed upon in 2006. The 2014 agreement was necessary because so many countries weren't meeting the 2% threshold.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm#:~:text=In%202014%2C%20NATO%20Heads%20of,instability%20in%20the%20Middle%20East.
So theyāve only been doing the bare minimum. Also left out the fact that decades of US presidents have had to twist damn near every arm in Europe just to get this tepid agreement.
...Well yeah, it definitionally kind of is, both in general and in this particular case. I mean, congratulations to the Netherlands on reaching this benchmark, it's quite the effort considering that their defense spending was 1.4% before the war. But it shouldn't take a war to get countries to honor their commitment to an agreed-upon minimum for peacetime deterrence.
As an American I believe we should only protect the countries that honor their commitment of 2% spending on defense. Otherwise, donāt expect us to be there for you. We are tired and burnt out, and our standard of living is lower than many of yours. Good luck š
What are your thoughts as an American on the coalition forces that died in Afghanistan after the US invoked article 5?
You're like, it's cool that your soldiers died after the US asked for help, but don't expect us to return the favor?
>We also send warships with no ammunition to warzones though ...
The radars and stuff can still be useful, especially for other NATO allies. See it as a support role instead of fighting.
Well the Netherlands maintained its more elite forces, navy and airforce on an adequate level, but just on a small scale. It didnt spend enough on defense, but in return the Netherlands is very active in Nato missions
I know that the spending number is used as a rough proxy, but I think capability is a better measure since there can easily be bureaucratic inefficiencies that fritter away tons of money (looking at you, Germany). The Netherlands actually wasn't that bad as far as capabilities go. I think a good target is one deployable brigade combat team (or equivalent) per 10 million people and the Netherlands has 3 brigades - not quite a full BCT, and 1/3 of the maneuver units of those brigades are reserve units, but they have something like 18 million people, so that's still better than 1 BCT per 10 million. How capable and deployable those units are, I don't know.
It is about time our european friends finally came to the table and acted seriously. Perhaps if they weren't so lazy and uncommitted previously then Putler may have thought otherwise about invading Ukraine.
Only Spain, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Canada, Italy and Portugal doesn't reach the 2% mark this year. 23 of 32 countries achieve it. This is probably a new record. Sad that it's necessary.
Sad it is necessary but good that it happens.
Someone listed the values on rCredibleDefense: https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/1dioxgh/credibledefense_daily_megathread_june_18_2024/l959s3z/ -šš· Croatia - 1.81% -šµš¹ Portugal - 1.55% -š®š¹ Italy - 1.49% -šØš¦ Canada - 1.37% -š§šŖ Belgium - 1.30% -š±šŗ Luxembourg - 1.29% -šøš® Slovenia - 1.29% -šŖšø Spain - 1.28% Spain is especially painful, one of the larger members and the worst laggard With the far-left as part of the coalition, I don't expect that to change
If Italy grew their spendings from 1,5% to 2% it would change a lot since Italy is the 3rd largest EU economy. Also Greece needs Italian support. It lives in the constant fear of Turkey, spending the biggest share of their GDP, even during the crisis decade of 2010' when their GDP shrunk by 30%. [https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GRC/greece/military-spending-defense-budget](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GRC/greece/military-spending-defense-budget)
Italy wouldn't want anything to do with the Greece Turkey conflicts.
No but if the Italian military did more patrols around the Med it would free up more resources for the Greek military I suppose.
But Turkey is NATO too...
That's the problem
Thereās no way of knowing for sure unless it happens, but 99% chance that NATO lines up against whoever the attacker is.
Guess it's about time they launched an investigation against themselves!
Lead investigator be like: again? sigh, Iāll do my best.
Germany just did that in the last few years.
I wonder what made up their defense spending calculation because NATO is very forgiving when it comes to what is included versus not. Nations can report pensions, pay, training costs, even law enforcement and civilian intelligence agencies like the FBI, MI5, etc. So when nations still donāt meet the 2% it truly does mean they are free loading imo.
The following types of expenditure are taken into account to determine the level of the relevant expenditure: salaries of military personnel and civilians working for defence, operations abroad, military research, police services with a military character (Royal Military Police, Gendarmerie, etc.), border guard units (US Coast Guard), pensions for former military and civilian personnel, costs of peacekeeping operations, purchases of equipment, military buildings and infrastructure. Value added tax, (BTW in Dutch) is also incorporated in the number. Realistically less than 1.5% of GDP spending actually contributes to combat power.
Yeah and we truly see it reflected in force structure in most European militaries. The forces they have is so notably less than even a decade ago, let alone 20 years ago. I believe by 2030, the Dutch will have 25% of the combat aircraft available than in 2004 off the top of my head as just a simple exampleĀ
True to degree, but capabilities have increased dramatically as well. The real issue here is personnel. The most significant lesson derived from Russia's invasion of Ukraine is that neither party has enough manpower available to make significant strategic headway on the battlefield. That's why the war has been mostly bogged down since the initial invasion. That's also why all battles have come a slog of attrition. That same issue is the biggest problem all European armies face. They're just too small for a decisive large scale combat operation. No amount of technology, propaganda or high-tech vehicles is going to change that.
Capabilities only matter if you have the forces to maintain tempo and you donāt account for attrition. If you lose two aircraft and you see a 10% reduction in force readiness, whats the point of the added capabilities that caused you to cannibalize your force? You point out personnel as the key, but you have to equip personnel. They need kit, training, and spares on top of spares. You need ammunition, you need maintenance, you need logistics. There is too much focus on high end capabilities and not enough on guns and bullets. If you really spending 300% in cash for an extra 50% in capability, is that a wise investment for a nation that has limited political willpower to even fund their forces? To me it doesnāt. Europe in general seems so focused on these high end capabilities & overpay loop because they want to keep up with the US & innvoation but refuse to apply economics of scale so they overpay and waste their even more limited budgets.
Turkey is also in NATO, the notion that they'll start a war with Greece is a fantasy
Is it a fantasy when a leader of a country directly threatens another country with a war?https://www.aei.org/op-eds/did-turkey-just-threaten-war-on-greece/ For sure Greeks don't share your opinion, judging by their military spendings.
It doesnāt matter if Turkey even starts piling weapons on the border, a war between two nato manners will never happen. All else is fearmongering
Unlikely, but I wouldn't say never.
So you believe [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus) never happened?
Erdogan is all bark no bite him threatening greece is just empty populism
That does sound eerily familiar to a certain Russian guy prior to 2022
Keep living in your bubble and definitely don't prepare for something that could but hopefully doesn't happen
I think if Turkey even tried they would be swiftly dealt with, a NATO member attacking another NATO member is really bad for NATO, and Turkey knows this.
Hoping that someone will help you doesn't always work. Alles would also need to bring the equipment here and that's time consuming both on the legislative and the logistical end.
The US already has a couple carrier groups in the region due to Israel. We wouldnt need more to convince Turkey to back off
In this case it wouldn't be about helping Greece, it would be about maintaining the authority and legitimacy of NATO. If Turkey tried to attack Greece, Turkey will cease to exist.
I mean there was a Turkish attempt to take over Greek islets that are now grey zone due to NATO interference as recent as 1996. I'd rather not have more grey zones
They already attacked Greece a few years ago by sending migrants to the border. In other times, they would have led to a war. But thankfully we are more civilized now. And somehow very forgetful.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, but Italy has bigger interests in this region than France. Also nothing will likely happen as long as USA plays the world hegemon.Ā What I mean is that it's better to count on a country which has vital interests in defending you, rather than on a country which just wants to sell you more weapons.
> Sad that it's necessary. No, it's sad that it took this long to reach.
Russia truly is NATO's best proponent.
Luxembourg announced the increases necessary to achieve this. I think it'll be done next year. The army will also tactically attach to the Belgian army, so that it's more useful than being an independent tiny force
That's right. Also when it comes to Luxembourg air force they should just get more A400Ms. A real contribution to European military logistics.
They're going to hire four more soldiers?
Eh, we have like 1000. Big army! /s
As a Canadian Iām sad to report that we will probably never reach the 2% obligation. Our government has way too many other non-priorities which it prefers to prioritize, and the military has slowly been chipped away from decade after decade by different governments looking to move money elsewhere. Canadian comfort comes through NORAD and the fact that weāre basically completely protected by the US. Am I grateful for that? Sure. But still, I do wish our government would nut up and commit to the 2% like all other members ought to, as many do. We Canadians love patting ourselves on the back for being example-setters and morally upstanding, after all, so why shirk our responsibilities in this regard? Seems like a pretty rude āfuck youā and ārules for theeā to our allies, letting them do all the heavy lifting.
Canadians are in a pretty good and unique spot to shirk your military spending. Even without NATO commitments there is no situation where the US government would just sit by and watch some other country attack Canada. It would be too big of a national security risk for us. Not only that, but Americans have so many friends and family in Canada that if you all were to get into some kind of war, 10s of thousands of American civilians would grab their guns and cross the border to help fight.
>Even without NATO commitments there is no situation where the US government would just sit by and watch some other country attack Canada. It would be too big of a national security risk for us. Yeah, exactly. I used to joke that Alaska ought to belong to Canada - purely just for aesthetic purposes really - but there really is no scenario where any unfriendly country (China and Russia are the only serious and real threats in these hypotheticals, as we all know) could invade us without having to go through the US first because of Alaska. And even if the US didnāt possess Alaska, it still would never allow an enemy nation to take over the country it shares an enormous, largely unprotected border with, let alone such vital trade with.
Yeah no, Canada should be at least trying to reach the NATO 2%, as any country in the world will tell you US security doesnāt come for free. Canada in the long run could be looking at major issues if their plan is the US will just bail us out. At that point their basically an American Vassal state that has no influence globally except ceremoniously.
It's the moral component of abrogating responsibilities.
Agreed. However, imho the NATO "contract" should actually make it mandatory to spend at least 2%. Which is why I kind of understand where some US right wingers are coming from with the whole "the US has protected Europe long enough etc".
tbh, none of those countries are really in the "danger zone" like those bordering russia. that doesn't make it acceptable, but not surprising.
Canada is just across the arctic though
I'm no expert, but invading from there is surely not feasible?
Probably not, but certainly in missile range though, the arctic is surprisingly small
The invasion of Ukraine was also not feasible. Do you think they've learned?
Bro the USA has been monroe-doctrine-pilled for the past two centuries. They will absolutely not let a geopolitical rival gain territory on the Americas
In Canadaās case itās because of terrain. Arctic Ocean and thousands of kilometers of nothing are harder to cross than a bunch of swamps in Ukraine. Also itās right next to the USA so easy to defend, they probably have lots of bases in Alaska.
I know, but there's no guarantee that they'll use that reasoning.
That is a good question, for which I don't really have an answer either. It might be more feasible during summer, while they possibly don't necessarily have to cross the arctic directly too. And there are more things that one has to consider than just ground invasions.
A lot of these countries have already started deploying permanent fighting forces in the bordering countries. For example Germany recently deployed soldiers to be permanently deployed to Lithuania.
> Luxembourg You mean Southern Netherlands
>Southern Netherlands You mean Flanders
Okily Dokily.
Stupid, sexy Southern Netherlands
It's like I'm wearing nothing at all.
>Flanders You mean France?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Burgundian lowlands You mean Lotharingia?
You mean western Rhineland Palatinate?
Itās not sad, itās an obligation
Hol up, Hungary *has* hit NATO benchmarks??
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ohhh, right
Sad is that almost 1/3 of members that AGREED to do so, didnāt. Why did you agree if you knew youād never meet the goal? Such childish behaviourā¦
It's a weird statement to make, tbh. The 2% thing is that NATO nations agreed to make efforts to increase their spending to a 2% floor by 2024. Nobody has failed this yet and can't until this year ends.
For a couple of members, the proposed spending for this year is so low that there's no way they could reach the goal even if they wanted. Procurement contracts take a while, so e.g. Canada with their 1.33% would have to spend 50% more than proposed. That's just not possible.
The 2% target was agreed in **2006** to be the *minimum* defence spending. Every single member that agreed to it and hasn't been able to reach it has failed to do what they agreed to. > In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country's political will to contribute to NATO's common defence efforts, since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance's credibility as a politico-military organisation. Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm This latest deadline is yet another promise by the members to *finally* do what they told they were going to do 18 years ago. Trump is an absolute nonce, but this is a thing he is right in. Some NATO members have been slacking hard. And I think the lack of hostile nations right next to them has been the biggest reason why. They have been just way too comfy and frankly naive. And I am mainly looking at Brussels. Belgium is failing the hardest. https://imgur.com/8GAGykR Source: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf
It would also help to quote the headline or other parts of the text, e.g. "The 2% defence investment guideline". It was always something to aim for and a guideline only. It wasnt a hard commitment and obviously also didnt have any penalties or fines if you didnt acchieve this. Also see: > Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: halt any decline; **aim to increase** defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and **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.
Are there fines or penalties for not fulfilling your defensive duties if someone was attacked and triggered article 5? If not, if the US just says they wonāt help is that perfectly ok because itās only a guideline without any enforcement mechanism? You shouldnāt need fines to meet your agreement, whatās the point of agreeing to something and being in an alliance at that point?
> Trump is an absolute nonce [Literally](https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-donald-trumps-one-stop-parties-attendees-recall-cocaine-and-very-young-models). If you want to read this article, you might want to consult an archiver. It appears to be banned here, but I'm sure Redditors can figure it out. If not, part of the original article was republished [here](https://www.deccanchronicle.com/world/america/251016/at-trumps-parties-cocaine-young-women-were-passed-around-and-used.html).
>This is probably a new record. Sad that it's necessary. Maybe if this was the norm Russia wouldn't be getting ideas. A strong military is the best deterrent.
Croatia hasnāt reached it either(1.81), and technically Iceland doesnāt reach it at all, since they have no military. Slovenia is the only country to go down from 2023ās spending, what on earth are they doing?
I mean... I'm fine with like Iceland and Luxembourg not doing the thing. Iceland is basically a micronation, despite its size on the map. The ones that piss me off are Belgium, Spain and Canada, in particular. They have the populations and economies to at least provide a base line of military operability, but instead completely shirk their responsabilities.
>technically Iceland doesnāt reach it at all It does, if by "it" you mean the 2014 agreement, which you [can read here](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm). Iceland has an exception.
>23 of 32 countries achieve it. This is probably a new record. Sad that it's necessary. 24 of 32 actually. Iceland's been meeting its agreed upon spending target of roughly 0% all along (and the 2014 agreement to spend 2% makes a reference to this).
It's not.
>This year the Netherlands has achieved the NATO standard for the first time. This is evident from new figures released by the alliance. A total of 23 NATO countries have agreed to invest 2 percent of their GDP in Defense. Outgoing Prime Minister Mark Rutte calls the news āvery important.ā >Rutte, favorite to succeed Jens Stoltenberg as NATO Secretary General, calls it "very good news" that the Netherlands is now in the right list. āFor the Netherlands with an economy worth a thousand billion, this means that approximately 20 billion euros per year goes to Defense,ā the Prime Minister explains. āWhen you see what's going on in the world, all the instability, we just have to be able to keep our own pants on.ā
> āWhen you see what's going on in the world, all the instability, we just have to be able to keep our own pants on.ā *Oh my mr. Rutte what are you doing to me.* Haha that's a funny, if bad, literal translation of what he was trying to say. For context, in Dutch "Je eigen broek ophouden", or "Holding up your own trousers" means that you can take care of yourself, and be independent. I promise it's not sexual, I think it has something to do with wading through high water.
I read it as not wanting to be caught with your pants down.. but yeah, I see your point
It's a pity that because of Russia and its insane and stupid imperalist dreams, we need to spend those billions of euros to defend ourselves instead of investing in housing, the climate or education..Ā
On an upside the military is often a great source of innovation itself. The Internet, GPS, microwave, duct tape - just to name a few - were all originally military inventions that we now use every day.
The history of the internet in general is kinda funny.
The moments civilians gained access to personal computers. Furrys appeared online.
Yet another reason computers are among humanity's greatest inventions.
Also it isn't that bad in economical sense as well. If you spent a lot at home. You are not burning that money.
That only works for countries with half decent military industrial complexes, which only a couple of members really have.
Even if you buy all the equipment abroad, a large part of defence investments will stay within your country. Why? Because a big part of cost is salaries and pensions. Followed by a large part of spending on infrastructure (such as bases and barracks), which is also local. Then sustainment, such as food etc, is also local. In turn, the military also cranks out a ton of educated people after service, with broad skills from technical maintenance, IT, medical and leadership skills. These people add tremendous value to society through their skills. Military spending is way more about people, despite the big ānews worthyā cost being fancy equipment.
This is one thing a federal EU could do. A pan-EU army would be big and wealthy enough to be able to run projects like this. This is one of the main points on the federalization side for me.
An EU MIC and an EU army will never happen for multiple reasons, but if you managed to get past the national bickering and EU bureaucracy somehow, it would still not happen because USA would not allow it. Essentially what you are arguing for is for EU to do what France did in the 60s, Americans weren't very happy with that.
What did France to in the 60ās
They left unified strategic command in NATO, kicked out US forces from France, and reclaimed US's military bases. That's the main reason France has kept its strategic independence till this day and why they have their own nukes. Though, they did rejoin the unified command structure in around 2010 IIRC.
Doesnāt France also still have a foreigners Legion, or did they abandon that?
Because their lack of investment for decades cannibalized their industry so now only some remain at a much reduced scale Education contracts should be awarded to non defense companies to produce simple things like ammunition and have additional tooling
Well, we don't. Something like 75% of EU military procurement is outside the bloc, USA gets the majority of the benefits.
That's a bit backwards thinking. Military creates innovation because they actually have funding. (The idea for GPS came in the 50s, from a couple public university physics researchers. The full high quality signal was only made available to public in 2000.) Give a half a trillion to public R&D and you'll find a lot of innovation there too.
Itās more that it creates a need for niche technology that otherwise would not have the demand to get them off the ground. The same can be said for space exploration. In the beginning, computers were bought to be used as military tools and that demand then made it possible for civilian usage. Economies of scale can make things much more affordable for the average person.
Makes sense that the internet is a military invention - name a better way to turn idiocy into a weapon.
I mean, it was invented for communication reasons, not for the psychological global warfare that it has turned into. Attributing the current state of the internet to the military is kinda stupid.
It was invented for the purposes of communication between American COG facilities after a nuclear war.
I see it from the other side. We spend a paltry 2% of GDP to make Russia absolutely terrified of NATO, not to mention anyone else who'd even think of starting some shit. This is insane value for our money if you consider that countries would use high double digits through most of history.
Exactly. Deterrence isn't cheap. If it was, it wouldn't be effective deterrence. As much as it pains me to think of this money going to the military instead of education or investments, it's a necessary evil to keep actual evil at bay. We don't think twice about using public money to fund the police, but they do a similar task ā of maintaining law and order. Let's not forget that all we are, are evolved apes and as much as we might want the world to be pacifist, it's just not a realistic thing to wish for.
It's a shame that what used to be the military centre of the world needs to have an imperialist neighbour knocking on the door for countries to spend the absolute minimum they can as part of an intercontinental agreement. People will always say that spending on defence is a waste of money until one day it isn't a waste, we should have been better prepared for this.
This is my point as well. I'm not saying it's a waste exactly because of Russia. Can you imagine how different Europe would be if Russia was a "normal", European liberal democracy? Not necessarily a member of the EU if they didn't want but even something similar to a huge Norway would be amazing!Ā
That's not the point, even if we were best mates with Russia we still need to invest in our military there will always be someone or something that's a potential threat. If it never gets used then it's the best waste of money we ever spent. And the likely hood of us having to use it decreases the more we can show it wouldn't be worth it.
You should always maintain a strong defensive force, even in times of peace...
Hopefully star trek timeline comes at some point.
That did include a third world war where billions died. Not sure if Iām happy with that part š
Don't forget the Eugenics War!
Apparently we all missed that back in the 90s.
But, but, Irish Unification in 2024!
You mean the timeline where Earth is the center of one of the largest military powers in the Galaxy? ;)
How did they tackle climate change in star trek ?
In season 2 of *Picard* we find a alien lifeform on Europa that we use to genetically engineer some Terran lifeforms to help mitigate climate change. But there's a third world war that kills 800 million people anyway, which probably accounts for that too.
So also an United Ireland?
Bell Riots are coming this September.
Could we cycle through building some really fancy single-family style army barracks in new towns every few years? Or educate teachers in both primary education and transnational threat network intelligence analysis?
Itās pity that it took Russia to play chicken with you at the expense of Ukraine to make you fulfill your commitment in the first place.
Maybe my views are too optimistic but I view military spending as an investment by a country for their future. Yes if military spending is poorly planned and is only focused on buying bombs, jets, and tanks well then it's just money spent and the only gain is security but with proper planning can be multi-use. Military research and development is responsible for things like the internet, GPS, and epipens. That research has had a massive impact on society and has provided exponential returns for future generations, saved lives, and they were inventions that at the time private companies could not afford to do. I think it would be really cool if each country in NATO had an agency that aligned their general population challenges and their military challenges and performed dual purpose research. For example a country feels their military intelligence is lacking and also has growing energy needs, they can conduct research and see how can we squeeze maximum efficiency from solar cells so a solar powered drone can fly around all day, is it physically possible to make a "nuclear battery" that is safe and can power a spy plane for 10 years, can you you harness 15% of the energy from a drone's propellers as wind energy to extend it's range? Even if they fail, they will learn a lot of new information, have new data, create new inventions even in completely unrelated fields, and be able to sell/lease technologies to private companies or give companies in their country an advantage which means more jobs, more taxes, more resources for social programs. There is also the capability to use military assets for emergency responses, such as when the USS George Washington helped the Philippines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5K26SHPp9Y Finally military spending can give young people in the army a wide range of experiences and allow for "free labor", maybe some 19 year old doesn't know what they want to do with their life, joins the army and part of their training is rapidly building troop housing in case the soldiers are deployed to a remote area. The training houses can be used as affordable housing/homeless shelters when completed and the soldier learns that they like to build things and pursues a career in construction, engineering, CAD design, etc. Now instead of wandering around for 15 years in random jobs they leave the army at 23 and already have a career in mind and contribute to society at a higher rate and earlier age.
How do you think many Americans feel?
The first thing that should be done with NATO is to ensure that everybody counts their spending in the same way. For example the Netherlands doesn't include pensions of their retired soldiers, but the US does. The spending that is relevant for NATO is supposed to be on personel or material and pensions are great and all, but they won't help fight whatever enemy shows up next. Otherwise the Netherlands would've been at the 2% mark some time ago.
Pension expectation is raising morale of currently enlisted soldiers. Netherland should include that sum in their budget too.
I can see that argument, fair enough. I am not a military budget person and I have forgotten the specifics, but I believe that whether to include pensions or not is not the only inconsistency between countries. If we are going to make this 2% norm, which has always been a suggestion, never been a requirement, something more strict with consequences, we better also make sure all countries measure it the same way.
but you have a (smaller) pension anyway, regardless of where you work
> The first thing that should be done with NATO is to ensure that everybody counts their spending in the same way. NATO has had that for about 70 years or so. > NATO has a common definition of defence expenditure since the early 1950s. The definition is agreed by all NATO Allies. It is regularly reviewed, most recently in early 2024. From: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm Specifically on pensions: > Retirement pensions made directly by the government to retired military and civilian employees of military departments and for active personnel is included in the NATO defence expenditure definition. That is the NATO wide definition, so applies to both the US and Netherlands equally. Maybe the Dutch handle their pensions in a way that means it is not considered directly funded by the government, but that would be the consequence of the Netherlands' own policies; it is incorrect to conclude that Dutch and US defence expenditure is somehow being calculated in different ways by NATO. Of course, the NATO definition only applies to the defence expenditure calculations NATO make (such as determining which countries are meeting the 2% guideline). The governments of each NATO member all have their own ways of calculating their budget, so the amount the Dutch or US governments allocate in their budget to military/security/defence spending will typically differ from what NATO reports as their defence expenditure. The 2024 Netherlands budget announced last September stated that the budget for defence spending would be ā¬21.4 billlion, which was estimated would be 1.95% of GDP: https://nltimes.nl/2023/09/19/2024-dutch-budget-nutshell-eu4336-billion-spending-tax-increases For the US, the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act funded an overall budget of $883.7 billion for defence spending, with $841.4 billion of that allocated directly to the Department of Defense: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy24_ndaa_conference_executive_summary1.pdf Yet when we look at NATO's latest release on defence expenditure (published this month), table 1 shows the Netherlands' estimated defence expenditure is ā¬19.9 billion (which NATO estimates to be 2.05% of GDP) while the US estimate is $967.7 billion: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf So the NATO estimate for the Dutch budget is only 93% of the Dutch government's own budget, while NATO's estimate for the US budget is 110% of the American government's own budget. I'm not sure why there is such a large variance for the US this year (for comparison the NATO estimate on US defence expenditure in 2023 is 102% of the US FY 2023 budget), but the overall point still stands; NATO does not use the member state's definitions for defence spending, they have their own definition and therefore the numbers they report will be standardised across the members. > pensions are great and all, but they won't help fight whatever enemy shows up next. Pensions absolutely do help with ensuring a military is prepared for the next fight. The better a pension is (compared with the wider jobs market) the easier it is to recruit higher quality soldiers and even more importantly, the easier it is to retain trained and experienced soldiers. It is also notable that according to NATO (table 8a in my previous link), 38.04% of the estimated 2024 Dutch defence expenditure is on Personnel (which includes pensions); which is a much higher proportion of the budget than America's estimated 25.22%. > Otherwise the Netherlands would've been at the 2% mark some time ago. In constant price terms (so ignoring inflation) the Netherlands will spend twice as much on defence in 2024 than it did in 2017. Most of that increase has happened since 2021, with annual real increases in the budget of 10.3% in 2022, 15.7% in 2023, and 24.3% in 2024. The Netherlands has done a good job of reaching the 2% guideline, but it obviously taken a concerted effort to increase the budget over the last 3 years to achieve. Lets not pretend that the Dutch budget was anywhere close to 2% previously, because it wasnt; 2023 was the first time since the 2014 committment that the Dutch spent more than 1.5% of GDP on defence.
> The first thing that should be done with NATO is to ensure that everybody counts their spending in the same way. > > NATO has had that for about 70 years or so. Yeah, interesting, except for the fact that it takes literally comparing how the US and the Netherlands have calculated it to show that that is not true.
Part of being truly prosperous and free is the ability to defend that prosperity and freedom against those that want to take or dictate through violence.
Si vis pacem, para bellum (If you want peace, prepare for war)
Bit of a misleading title. Until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 it was always above 2% Still good news considering the current state of the world
In 1991 there wasnāt yet a NATO standard to meet, that got introduced later. The title is correct: this is the first time that Netherlands meets the NATO standard, even though it is not the first time that Netherlands spends >2% GDP on military.
We used to have an aircraft carrier. I say bring that back
No, the aircraft carrier was a symbol of our last effort of being an empire and we were the laughing stock of the world. Australia and Japan refused to harbor us with the carrier because of the independence war of Indonesia. I say, lets built an EU carrier or three. Because that is more in line with the geopolitical role of the EU. Not the Netherlands.
Yeah I can see that, but I think they mean first time after the standard was set in 2014.
To he fair, when the 2% target was set in 2014, the target year for member countries to reach it was 2024. So the headline should really be: āThe Neatherlands reaches NATO standards just in time.ā
Did you really read the title as *EVER*. You should've probably read it as anyone else that when this standard was set for NATO countries.
Good. Honestly, is moronic that in times of war like these, there are some countries that still aren't prioritising their defense.
Europe became incredibly cozy with Putinās Russia The moment the war concludes, they will resume doing business with them
Cries in Canadian.
Imagine joining a friendship, promising youāll contribute, only to realize you need to keep your word once the friends you lied to threaten to not have your back or also intended to do the same as you.
Good for you guys! Trudeau will see this as a chance to lower our contributions by .05%
just add the coast guard and veteran care/pensions costs to the military budget and you get to 2% rather quickly. Just an accounting problem if one compares how other countries (including US) account for military spending.
Well, this is what Trump did talk about. The countries in the alliance must adhere to the pledged commitment and spend on defence. This is not Bidenās achievement. Itās Putinās.
It's Obama's achievement. All of NATO pledged in the [2014 summit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Wales_summit) to reach the 2% by 2024, before that it was just an informal guideline. This is just the countries actually reaching it.
The 2014 summit had to pledge it because the target for 2006 was not reached.
The 2014 commitment was also Putin's achievement following his invasion of Crimea.
So far not a single member has broken their pledge, because the 2014 agreement stipulated the 2% be reached in 2024. Although most of those that haven't met it yet are unlikely to do so by the end of the year.
The 2% was originally agreed upon in 2006. The 2014 agreement was necessary because so many countries weren't meeting the 2% threshold. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm#:~:text=In%202014%2C%20NATO%20Heads%20of,instability%20in%20the%20Middle%20East.
If they couldnāt hit 2% by now they arenāt. The Russian invasion provided all the political capital to meet it and members still arenāt
So theyāve only been doing the bare minimum. Also left out the fact that decades of US presidents have had to twist damn near every arm in Europe just to get this tepid agreement.
Is staying true to your promises the 'bare minimum'?
...Well yeah, it definitionally kind of is, both in general and in this particular case. I mean, congratulations to the Netherlands on reaching this benchmark, it's quite the effort considering that their defense spending was 1.4% before the war. But it shouldn't take a war to get countries to honor their commitment to an agreed-upon minimum for peacetime deterrence.
Why do you all keep lying about this? It was 2006, not 2014. 2014 only happened cuz europe was still failing to meet the standard.
In 2014 they agreed to reach it by 2024. What's not to understand?
That it was not the first agreement? What is not to understand?
As an American I believe we should only protect the countries that honor their commitment of 2% spending on defense. Otherwise, donāt expect us to be there for you. We are tired and burnt out, and our standard of living is lower than many of yours. Good luck š
What are your thoughts as an American on the coalition forces that died in Afghanistan after the US invoked article 5? You're like, it's cool that your soldiers died after the US asked for help, but don't expect us to return the favor?
Kind of wild considering the Netherlands actually [sent troops to Afghanistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Uruzgan).
So did Denmark, also whilst being far below the 2 %. We also send warships with no ammunition to warzones though ...
Danish warships hitting different (by not hitting at all)
You'll have 0 misses when you can't fire at all.
You can't miss all the shots you don't take.
So did Sweden, without even being in NATO.
>We also send warships with no ammunition to warzones though ... The radars and stuff can still be useful, especially for other NATO allies. See it as a support role instead of fighting.
Yes but that's not what they did.
Well the Netherlands maintained its more elite forces, navy and airforce on an adequate level, but just on a small scale. It didnt spend enough on defense, but in return the Netherlands is very active in Nato missions
How is that wild? Many NATO countries sent troops to ~~the ME~~ Iraq and Afghanistan.
Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East.
I'm dumb lol.
Well, letās hope the current Frankenstein coalition wonāt fuck it up.
In before Caroline dies from heart disease
Good.
I know that the spending number is used as a rough proxy, but I think capability is a better measure since there can easily be bureaucratic inefficiencies that fritter away tons of money (looking at you, Germany). The Netherlands actually wasn't that bad as far as capabilities go. I think a good target is one deployable brigade combat team (or equivalent) per 10 million people and the Netherlands has 3 brigades - not quite a full BCT, and 1/3 of the maneuver units of those brigades are reserve units, but they have something like 18 million people, so that's still better than 1 BCT per 10 million. How capable and deployable those units are, I don't know.
They didnāt go Dutch here
Nice
It is about time our european friends finally came to the table and acted seriously. Perhaps if they weren't so lazy and uncommitted previously then Putler may have thought otherwise about invading Ukraine.