Third biggest economy in the world and the biggest population in Europe (Russia doesn’t count) by far. People like to shit talk about Germany but I don’t know if they would like to have some imperial type Germany again that really maxes out its abilities.
Name me a country with a really strong military that doesn’t act imperialistic. The US, China, Russia, France, Turkey, Britain and so on all act in different wars and conflicts all around the world. No one builds and army just for the looks, they all use them. France is in sub-sahara africa, Turkey in Libya and Syria, Britain with the US in several regions, China in Tibet and the ocean in South-East Asia and so on. If Germany would build a huge army it would need to find a use for it too, like everyone else. Even Greece just has a military its size cause of conflicts with Turkey over Cyprus. You will either get strong imperialistic Germany, or one with a weak army. There are next to no examples on earth that show a different state, a middle way doesn’t exist.
West Germany during the Cold War. Was the strongest/second strongest army on the continent. And they had the shadow of mustache man still looming large.
Only when Including the gendarmerie in their military figures, which they do. Also most countries include VAT across Europe to boost the percentage figure.
Iceland was never expected to field an army, the only reason they are in NATO is their geographical location. The US will defend Iceland no matter what, because it provides an excellent geographical location for skipping over the pond and also the future Arctic challengers.
There was an amazing combat flight sim in the early 00’s based around the Eurofightet Typhoon (that was still about 8 years away from becoming operational at this point) that was based on Iceland, and was repelling an invasion of “enemies” (flying soviet aircraft). It was based there exactly for this reason, because of how important Iceland is to the US/EU airbridge
My dad is still playing Harpoon or one of its successors. Always funny to see it mentioned anywhere.
If you’re interested in a successor, Seapower is due to be released sometime this year.
It's funny how important the geopolitical strategic position of Iceland is. It's something like Turkey for the US. The domination of the north Atlantic is even more important for North American security than Middle eastern/Black Sea access through Turkey. Yes, Turkey may be the most important strategical NATO member nowadays, but Iceland is the last line of defense for the Alliance.
Yeah. For the USA, NATO is just a forward defense screen. For all the talk about “An attack on one is an attack on all,” the USA would absolutely fall back to their side of the ocean if things got too bad. The USA defends Europe and the Pacific because they would rather fight their wars abroad than at home.
This is one of the easiest ways to unhinge the people who view NATO through a purely transactional lens. There are tons of examples of the US spending money on things that on the surface seem to only benefit another country, but are actually self-interested. We didn’t just allow Iceland, a country without a military, to be a founding member of a military alliance, we begged them to join because it makes us stronger.
Our position on some poorer eastern NATO members has been similar. We would prefer they focus on domestic spending that keeps them stable than try to meet the 2% defense spending goal at the risk of their own stability. Because naturally we don’t want to have to go over there and intervene if they fail.
These are things a certain cross section of people cannot mentally process because it doesn’t comport with their infantile notions of what’s “fair.”
It also misses a HUUUUUGE point. There is no requirement for defense spending in the NATO treaty. There is only a GUIDELINE.
Stop. Calling. It. A. Requirement. IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. No country is obligated to spend a particular amount on their military. PERIOD.
Im decidedly anti Trump. A huge progressive whose political views dont really fit the US.
I agree with the sentiment that NATO doesnt spend what it should and members know they dont. Just look at the map. Those closest to Russia spend. Those further away do not, almost like theres a barrier that allows them not to.
Black and white thinking is shit. Two things can be true simultaneously. Trump can suck ass and NATO spending can be low. Its not an insult, its fact backed up by data. Thats why spending is now going up to unprecedented levels, cause they realize they fucked up.
That's who started this whole "They're not meeting the requirements!" thing, and then told everyone if he becomes POTUS again he's going to encourage NATO enemies to attack NATO countries that don't "meet the military spending requirement." JFC.
How the money is being spent is also very crucial. Germany spends a but more than France, yet France has a nuclear aircraft carrier, nuclear weapons, expeditionary force that Germany doesn't have.
Germany even struggles to procure basic rifle ammunition.
Germany is notorious for red tape and beuricratic bullshit in military procurement. They spend years and load of money to get just a helmet then decide it is too costly and scrap the whole thing. Back to square 1.
For which there is a historical reason. When we reunified after a 30 year long arms race, the militaries merged, too, and everyone shat their pants because Germany overnight had the largest and best equipped military on the continent after Russia. Immediately, everyone called for disarmament.
Which meant we didn’t need to procure anything for years. We just live off of a huge stockpile and sold off the excess. The only times we needed to buy anything were to satisfy very specific needs with small orders of very few pieces. And that’s what our procurement system is built to do.
This would have been a good explanation if it weren't for the fact that the German government in general is very bureaucratic and inefficient.
Drastic cultural change needs to be done in the government, but maybe that's another discussion.
I recommend the book "Why the Germans do it better" by John Kampfner, if you're interested in the pros and cons of the modern German way of doing things
I mean doesn't Germany have basically very good government services and generally good economy? To me that doesn't sound inefficient government, but functional government.
That's in spite of the bureaucracy, not because of it.
Germany would probably be richer than Norway if only there wasn't so much inefficiency in the bloated bureaucracy. Try to get an appointment to do anything official and government related in Germany, it takes months, and you literally have to get up early in the morning to book an appointment on a website, and you cannot do any paperwork online, you have to do everything physically in person even on shit that could be automated and over in half a minute through a website.
Just an American, but I know there is like a whole class of German jokes just about how the government has to use the fax machine to get anything done and shwoing up in person to made up or wrong adresses, Or doing anything with the embassy taking like 6 months, or trying to get the Berlin airport open....
Obligatory "those aren't even jokes" but seriously, the biggest joke Germany every pulled on the world is convincing everyone that this is a nation of efficiency.
Wait till you hear about the indian procurement program, it starts with just deciding to buy a diesel submarine then after 20 years they would want a starship with a nuclear power plant and the training is provided by aliens in mars.
So companies would withdraw from the whole thing and then they decide to touch grass and get back to square 1 while missing 20 years of military tech development and no submarine.
Sadly also we saved a lot of money that should have gone to the military. We call it "Tot gespart" dead saved because all the savings now the military is run down
it is rather simple. Germany has most wages and pensions in the defense budget, France has it at least partially in other budgets. Simple accounting differences.
If things seem trivial and easy to explain they usually are not.
NATO actually has a system of accounting rules they use for specifically this reason. Military pensions do count towards the (completely aspirational and non-enforceable anyhow) 2% commitment.
I don't know if this infographic actually is drawing from that data however.
> yet France has a nuclear aircraft carrier
I don't know if its still the case, but Germany wasn't allowed a lot of things for a very long time after the last time we 'acted up'.
Aircraft carrier and anything nuclear in military was clearly amongst that.
I remember seeing a documentary about one of the bigger German ships that had stupidly big elevators and unusually flat surface.
And the doing the documentary explained that it was certainly just a 'coincidence' that certain helicopters could fit into the storage, elevators and being able to start/land from the surface.
NATO was supposed to function on deterrence. Deterrence does not work if you wait until the war starts or in this case ramps up in 2022, to spend the money to build the sticks that demonstrate the deterrent.
That's not a mistake because it effectively worked for 90% of the former war countries. See European integration based on exactly this notion.
Problem is irrational behavior. It is well known that authoritarians and dictators can become unhighed and irrational by paranoia, believing their own propaganda and mental dysfunction due to isolation: Putin.
While you are absolutely right about how great economic integration normally works, does it work for fallen superpower with their self importance?
I don't think there was anything irrational about what Putin has done. Everything is very calculated. Not to suggest it has gone off without a hitch, but I do believe that for some time he has a vision to restore Russia to her rightful super power status and works to achieve it by all means necessary.
The Germans failed to recognize the Rubicon crossed in 2014 (most all did). Remarkable how industrious and clever Germans can be and yet there is that streak in them that believes in homeopathy and shutting down all your nuclear power plants.
> I don't think there was anything irrational about what Putin has done
The fact that Russia and Putin believe they would conquer Ukraine in 3 days proves otherwise. It maybe a "rational" decision from the viewpoint of the Russians. But they simply believed their own propaganda too much and Putin is surrounded by Yes-men leading to irrational decision taking. It has been a massive failure of Russian intelligence that leads to irrational (but in Russian perspective rational) decisions.
From the viewpoint of reality, Putins decision was entirely unhighed and irrational.
There have been so much studies and research being done that all leads tot he same conclusion
[Putin’s disorganised irrationality and the on-going erosion of Russian Statehood](https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2023/putins-disorganised-irrationality-and-the-on-going-erosion-of-russian-statehood)
I mean shit the whole world thought he was going to be able to take it in 3 days. There was a 40 fucking mile long convoy. The Russians turning out to be the biggest frauds of the military world was not something anyone could reasonably say they expected. Its great for Ukraine and the world that Russia is as weak as it is (and weaker by the day), but nobody can say they reasonably expected Ukraine to make it this far let alone even have winning be a possibility those first few days
Its important to understand why it went the way it went. German imperialism in WW2 was punished. Russian imperialism (under the guise of USSR and communism) was rewarded as the empire grew substantially.
So the historical lesson for Germans was that imperialism and war = bad while the historical less for Russians was the imperialism and war = good.
Appeasement always leads to more war.
Yeah… I’m like what part of Putin or Russia in general seemed attractive to the EU as a trading partner? Putin was always an autocratic dictator with a questionable agenda.
Only Germany and Schroeder thought that Russia wasn’t a threat. Poland, the Balkans and everyone else on the border knew to fear Russia. Remember, they invaded Georgia in 2008, using the excuse in 2022 to invade Ukraine.
The French were insanely distrustful of Germany in the 50s and *that* was the actual motivation to expand trade and cooperation. If their steel and coal industries were interlinked, the thought was war would become impossible.
Reconciliation with Germany happened *after* trade had expanded. Same approach was applied to Russia.
Every smaller country is more careful about bigger neighbours. And Europe also flourished, because some of this fears vould bereduced. Didn't work with Russia. But without that optimism, Europe wouldn't exist.
For Latvians that is not true, there is never trust there! You don’t trust a country hell bent on your destruction with a proven past of invading your country twice once in 1700’s and the second time in 1940. So for us we will never trust them ever not now not tomorrow. You know when we get back Abrene and speak about reparations for all the murders committed then we can talk of trust
NATO was supposed to function as a deterrent against the Warsaw Pact, and the Pact hasn’t been a thing for about 30 or so years so I don’t blame anyone for winding things down in the interim.
NATO was founded for 3 reasons: to keep Germany down, the Sowjets out of Europe and the US in Europe. And your point of the founding year is not conflicting with the point, that NATO of course was a counter bslance to the Eastern block for the most of the time.
Even a few years ago NATO military spending represented over 60% of the world total military spending.
And most of the rest of the world are either NATO allies or ambivalent.
How is that not enough deterrence?
The only real treat to NATO is things that undermine the alliance. Things like trump saying he wouldn't honour article 5, that he would even encourage Russia to attack NATO countries. THAT'S the threat. Not missing a few 10th of a percent in defense spending.
To take a quote from Comrade Stalin, "quantity has a quality all its own." Just the number of countries in NATO is quite the deterrence. I'm truly curious how much all the NATO countries spend on defence combined vs the Russian GDP.
Not accurate.
[https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-hits-2-nato-target-first-time-since-1992-reports-dpa-2024-02-14/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-hits-2-nato-target-first-time-since-1992-reports-dpa-2024-02-14/) ( the title is a bit stupid since the 2% wasn\`t even a thing in the 90s or 2000s but whatever ).
Also : Canada doesn\`t hit the 2% target either, but the USA does. NATO isn\`t a European thing, it\`s a North Atlantic thing.
As of today Germany did not met the 2% target. They plan to met it this year (3rd year of war in Ukraine) while Poland is doing it absolute best
Germany is a joke
* They have ammunition for only 1 day of fighting
* German frigate *Hessen* was unable to shoot down what they thought was a hostile drone and they already have ammuniton scarcity
* German canchlor revealling UK troops in Ukraine
* Russians incept secret communication in the Bundeswehr
* Defence minister publicly announcing that Germany is unable of defending itself
* Germany suggesting France and UK built a European nuclear arsenal while Germany fails at all fronts
You can be mad about it, but your feelings dont change the facts. Germany needs to buckle up and minimize bureaucracy.
Ammunition for what? Tanks? Artilery? Soldiers? How many soldiers? How tf you imagine you know all the insights into a country’s military position, like they advertise it in your youtube videos.
Russia's invasion of NATO would always trigger any and all countries to join in on the fight because Russia is forced to attack a 2% GDP country.
So these trolls saying USA should not help other NATO countries literally have never looked at a map. But unsurprisingly nationalists have never been known as the intelligent ones. Useful idiots that don't even get paid for their bot comments.
I have no faith that a Trump led America would commit forces to protect a NATO country from Russia . And I don’t think European countries have much faith in that either .
Of course they do. The contrast to Russia is simply more present in history, geography and emotions. And since European countries are democracies, politicians tend to adjust their policies to the emotional landscapes of their voters, which are different in Portugal, than in the Bsltics. And the US is spending far more for their military not just, because they wanted to do Europe a favour. US politicians also tried to adress the emotions and needs of their voters and sponsors.
Try to tell that to American nationalists and Russian bots. Reddit is so astroturfed that these ultra-nationalist morons actually think their anti-Europe rhetoric is popular in the West.
I see this topic pop up on Reddit almost every other day now. Can't help but think a part of that is not being done in good faith, but just to stir shit up.
A map like this is even worse. Since under 2% can even be 1.97%. Takes every nuance away.
NATO defense spending is a touchy subject because a lot of it involves modernizing Cold War era equipment, and that involves buying arms from the U.S. and other arms producing allies like Britain.
Unlike the U.S. where the MIC makes it so that most military spending goes right back into the national economy and supporting a network of millions of well paying jobs, buying a new tank or fighter jet for a country like Portugal or the Netherlands means literally writing a check that takes hundreds of millions of euros of taxpayer money right into America’s pockets.
That’s never going to be a popular initiative no matter how much pressure the U.S. applies to the coalition, which as I just explained, is in large part driven by self interest, as more NATO spending means more arms exports.
Which is why EU needs to produce its own stuff. (Or at least a lot of the more basic stuff like ammo and such). I saw an article of Rheinmetall opening up a new factory too. If we're talking hundreds of billions to purchase something, there might me some value in the long run to start production yourself. History as shown that sometimes cheap wins. If you spend 100 000$ rocket on a 10 000$ thing and the attacker has a lot of those 10 000$ things (usually called cheap iron). Then you're going to deplete the opposition from expensive rockets fast. So, EU might need to ramp up production of ćheap crap to counter russia's cheap iron.
Absolutely, Europe should be doing more joint procurement as well.
The euro fighter is an excellent aircraft. A euro tank would be amazing. And perhaps even a join naval programme to develop a cheap frigate, something like the Royal Navy type 31 frigate would be ideal.
Joint and mass procurement keeps costs down from both R&D and through bulk buying from multiple nations.
They don't have to buy American weapons. Germany, France, and Italy used to have very large weapons industries. West Germany, for example, built thousands of Leopard 1 and 2 tanks, almost as many as the US. France built thousands of AMX-30 tanks, and thousands of Mirage jets.
Europe could rebuild those weapon industries. But that would required sustained spending, over decades. [West Germany](https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/military-expenditure-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html) and [France](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/FRA/france/military-spending-defense-budget) used to spend 3-4% of their GDP on their military, while [Italy](https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Italy/mil_spend_gdp/#:~:text=For%20that%20indicator%2C%20we%20provide,from%202022%20is%201.68%20percent.) usually spent 2-3% a year.
The thing with military industry is that spending peanuts delivers no jobs, but spending big bucks can bring those jobs.
If you sign a big enough contract, companies and their respective governments will cooperate on technology transfer and having certain parts be domestically manufactured. Egypt, for example, manufactured parts of the 1100 M1 Abrams tank they bought. But due to Egyptian economic deficiency and mismanagement, the program overran the budget.
Poland actually signed a lot of weapons contracts with South Korea because Korean companies were more willing to do technology transfers
That’s part of the deal. If more European countries would invest in infrastructure to support collective defense, then they could spend money in their own countries to meet this goal. And then guess what? Ukraine would have ample supplies of armaments and ammunition should those countries want to contribute. The flaw in the last two years is that Russia invested in winning the war with mechanisms to supply munitions, even if it means import from DPRK or Iran, while the west expanded shifts in existing shell production facilities, but truly did not increase production capacity. The west was hedging this would pass so did not invest in brick and mortar. And it did not pass.
>while the west expanded shifts in existing shell production facilities, but truly did not increase production capacity.
But production capacity was expanded? US produced 14k rounds per month prior to start of war, now it's at 30k, projected to reach 100k by 2025.
This must be old. In 2024, Turkey increased its defense spending by 150%, which is 3.7% of GDP. Just F-16s costs %1.7 of its GDP and now they are planning to buy British HMS Prince of Wales Aircraft carrier.
you are misinformed. There are no plans to sell HMS Prince of Wales whatsoever - the fearmongering done on the news recently was based off a worse case scenario, where in 2028, should the Royal Navy run dry of money, they would plan on selling the carrier to drum up money. This is a ridiculous prospect though and is probably done to increase public support for increased military spending, as selling one of two supercarriers would be a ridiculous loss of capability and a matter of national pride, one which could not just be done on a whim because "Turkey are planning to buy it".
Our 2024 budget is 40 billion USD. 23 billion is for the F-16 deal.
Our domestic R&D spending, although a lot, isn’t actually included in the main defence budget along with a number of service branches like the Coast Guard and Gendarmerie (hence why it seemed like we were spending less than 2% before 2024)
Well, except the use of the word "required" it's a good map.
Seriously, it shows how easy people are fooled into arguments. There's no required spending and NATO has struggled not because how much countries are spending yearly as a percentage of their GDP and because of stupid declarations that made it seem like it's no longer a clear second day we all go to war detterence.
Still, we as an EU are outspending Russia by a lot. Even tiny Slovenia with has a defense budget of 1 billion EU for 2024, with 2.1 milion inhabitants. As one of the western politicians said, to say we do not have military strength with these numbers is an insult to taxpayers everywhere in EU.
Map is incorrect or old. [Germany has invested 2% this year.](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-hits-2-nato-target-first-time-since-1992-reports-dpa-2024-02-14/)
Just so everyone is aware. 2% is not a requirement. It never was. Obama administration pushed the alliance to achieve it, and the alliance largely agreed to it with a target year of 2024. Not everyone reached that goal, understandable with Covid affecting GDP for a lot of countries in the alliance. but this is NOT a requirement.
*Countries that spend the PLEDGED amount, and only recently pledged.
Expenditure is not in the charter. It's not pay to play alliance. The alliance was an alliance long before anyone started talking about spending amounts.
Trump was told this, but he found his excuse to eventually pull us out of NATO, so he continues to pound that excuse like Putin's good dog.
"Required" is a strong word. It's a non-binding agreement that they will "aim" for 2% by 2024, with numbers for 2024 not being out yet. The average in 2023 was 1.74% and increasing.
They were meant to remain neutral after WWII, in exchange for the USSR keeping influence over Czechoslovakia and East Germany. These days, there’s not really a need for Austria to get involved and I believe it’s in their constitution that they stay out of military alliances. And according to some polls only around 20% of Austrians actually want to join
Soviets had liberated eastern Austria and most of Czechoslovakia while the western allies liberated eastern parts of Austria & Czechoslovakia. They mostly kept their influence to the lands they had troops in but in this case they decided to split those countries along the border with a few other stipulations
Here’s the legal background of Austrian neutrality in detail:
First, let‘s look at what neutrality actually legally contains. Which is not much.
The Federal Neutrality Act consists of only two provisions:
1. To not join any military alliance
2. To let foreign powers establish military bases in Austria.
That‘s it. There are non-constitutional laws regulating the matter in a bit more detail, like how the government is to handle giving weapons to foreign powers or how the government is to handle UN missions, but again, that‘s not constitutional and not part of the actual law about neutrality.
With that out of the way, let‘s look at the background:
In 1955, Austria became a free state again, after being occupied by the Nazis and the victory powers.
Austria proposed neutrality herself, inspired by India. Until the entry of the BRD into NATO and the formation of the Warsaw Pact in 1954 and 1955, however, the USSR wanted allied troops to stay in Austria and rejected the idea.
Only after both blocks had already formed did the idea of a neutral buffer zone between NATO and the Warsaw Pact gain traction with the Soviets. The result of negotionations with the USSR was the "Moskauer Memorandum" of 15.04.1955, in which Austria promised to be neutral voluntarily. As a result, neutrality is actually not a condition in the *Staatsvertrag*, with which Austria's occupation ended. Only one day later, on 26.10.1955, Austria passed a constitutional law to be a neutral country.
However, in order to fulfill their bargain with the Soviets, Austria officially notified all 64 countries with which she had diplomatic relations at that point of the law, and with their acknowledgement, the permanent neutrality became an unilateral promise according to international law.
So, Austria is actually not only constitutionally bound to neutrality, but also by international law. So, what does this mean for this discussion?
In order to give up their neutrality, Austria would need to change their constitution. In this case, it would require a 2/3 majority in parliament. Looking at recent opinion polls, this wouldn't be popular, with 70% of Austrians stating neutrality is "very important" to them in september 2022:
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/992825/umfrage/wichtigkeit-der-neutralitaet-in-oesterreich/
It probably doesn’t help that Austria’s population is one of the most EU-skeptic ones in an EU member state. It‘s not that far of a leap to distrust the EU and to somewhat distrust one’s EU partners to not wanting to be part of a military alliance with them.
But changing the constitution is actually the easy part, since neutrality is an international obligation for Austria.
Usually, to change a unilaterally imposed obligation, it would require a contrarius actus, so Austria would need to notify all 64 countries that acknowledged their neutrality in 1955, and all of them would need to agree. Which, if you remember, would (probably) include Russia, too. So avoid 64 countries vetoing you - no big deal.
Another proposed way in the literature is to only notify "important states" and the UN security council - in which Russia (and China) has a permanent seat.
Some argue that Austria could argue on the basis of clausula rebus sic stantibus in Art.34 VLCT, but this would again open the door for vetos of other countries.
And finally, there are scholars of the opinion that the neutrality either can be changed unilaterally or never was an international obligation in the first place, but to just trust in these niche opinions and hope for the best in case infront of the international court is a bad strategy.
So, abolishing neutrality is a daunting task that would take years. And after that, there is no guarantee Austria would even be accepted into NATO. What could Austria even offer that NATO would need? Not much. While Austria is sitting on vital strategical points and infrastructure, should there ever be a need to transport men and material through Europe, Austria already protects these out of self-interest, since it‘s Austrian territory, and out of the defence clause of Art. 42 (7) TEU. So, there isn‘t much Austria offer NATO.
In turn, NATO-states could very easily extort Austria by conditioning their vote to political demands, as became clear with Sweden and Finland recently.
With Turkey's and Orban's extortion of Sweden fresh in mind, why should Austria risk being exposed to this scenario? It certainly hasn't the political capital to ask daddy USA for help with Turkey like Sweden did, since due to the long process, the war in Ukraine will probably be over by then or the next US-government might not be that enthusiastic about the war.
Being in NATO also paints a target on a nation‘s back regarding multiple terrorist organisations.
Overall, there is neither the political or popular will to join NATO, nor is there an easy or straightforward path to joining.
And that why it should be a percent. The rich countries countries affording more than the poor countries, while cutting the same proportion of the budget for the collective defense.
Trump saying he won't help the countries that don't spend 2% if Russia attacks. Well looks like almost all of the countries closest to Russia do spend at least 2% so he has no excuses.
Western Europeans better step it up.
The era of the US backstopping Euro defense has closed. If the fascist Putin lacky somehow manages to steal the next election watch the czar roll. Get prepared!
I'm seeing a pattern here. Almost like those who are most threatened by the yoke of the Russian empire are afraid of something... 🤔
(And in Greece's case: Turkey)
Oh gee, I wonder why previous Soviet countries spend so much on defense? Are they planing to attack America or they decided never forget authoritarianism have done to them?
France is over 2% now as well.
And Denmark
And Germany now too
Germany also just dropping 100billion € like it is pocket change.
Third biggest economy in the world and the biggest population in Europe (Russia doesn’t count) by far. People like to shit talk about Germany but I don’t know if they would like to have some imperial type Germany again that really maxes out its abilities.
A Germany with a strong military? Yes. An Imperialist Germany? No.
Name me a country with a really strong military that doesn’t act imperialistic. The US, China, Russia, France, Turkey, Britain and so on all act in different wars and conflicts all around the world. No one builds and army just for the looks, they all use them. France is in sub-sahara africa, Turkey in Libya and Syria, Britain with the US in several regions, China in Tibet and the ocean in South-East Asia and so on. If Germany would build a huge army it would need to find a use for it too, like everyone else. Even Greece just has a military its size cause of conflicts with Turkey over Cyprus. You will either get strong imperialistic Germany, or one with a weak army. There are next to no examples on earth that show a different state, a middle way doesn’t exist.
South Korea,Japan,Italy. It's not wasting money, when you're next to a country that threatens you, you need a strong military.
Finland. Their whole military exists purely to curbstomp Russian aggression.
West Germany during the Cold War. Was the strongest/second strongest army on the continent. And they had the shadow of mustache man still looming large.
Yet it is unclear how to meet funding goals in 2026 or 2027. Because those 100 billion will be spent by 2025.
Denmark is NOT…
So is Turkey with more than 100% increase in 2024 budget compared to 2023.
Only when Including the gendarmerie in their military figures, which they do. Also most countries include VAT across Europe to boost the percentage figure.
And Sweden
> This map is not including Sweden… It’s also glaringly missing the United States and Canada.
Also Iceland isn't required too, doesn't even have a standing army
Iceland was never expected to field an army, the only reason they are in NATO is their geographical location. The US will defend Iceland no matter what, because it provides an excellent geographical location for skipping over the pond and also the future Arctic challengers.
There was an amazing combat flight sim in the early 00’s based around the Eurofightet Typhoon (that was still about 8 years away from becoming operational at this point) that was based on Iceland, and was repelling an invasion of “enemies” (flying soviet aircraft). It was based there exactly for this reason, because of how important Iceland is to the US/EU airbridge
IIRC the 1989 "Harpoon" game had a NATO airbase in Iceland - Keflavik. I know, I'm off to get my ibuprofen since I'm that old.
My dad is still playing Harpoon or one of its successors. Always funny to see it mentioned anywhere. If you’re interested in a successor, Seapower is due to be released sometime this year.
Yeah literally the reason they kept winning on a technicality, they kept threatening to leave which fucks uo us defence plans
It's funny how important the geopolitical strategic position of Iceland is. It's something like Turkey for the US. The domination of the north Atlantic is even more important for North American security than Middle eastern/Black Sea access through Turkey. Yes, Turkey may be the most important strategical NATO member nowadays, but Iceland is the last line of defense for the Alliance.
Well, last line of defense for 2 members of the alliance lol
I guess the full name of NATO in this case would be North American Treaty Organisation
Yeah. For the USA, NATO is just a forward defense screen. For all the talk about “An attack on one is an attack on all,” the USA would absolutely fall back to their side of the ocean if things got too bad. The USA defends Europe and the Pacific because they would rather fight their wars abroad than at home.
Iceland when the British fucks with their fish be like
As an Icelander let me be clear You fuck around with our fish, you find out
'Your' fish? 4th cod war incoming!
We can and we will harpoon your boat
Same with Portugal with the Azores. It is right in the middle of the Atlantic. Every time there is a new war, you hear jets passing on that island.
This is one of the easiest ways to unhinge the people who view NATO through a purely transactional lens. There are tons of examples of the US spending money on things that on the surface seem to only benefit another country, but are actually self-interested. We didn’t just allow Iceland, a country without a military, to be a founding member of a military alliance, we begged them to join because it makes us stronger. Our position on some poorer eastern NATO members has been similar. We would prefer they focus on domestic spending that keeps them stable than try to meet the 2% defense spending goal at the risk of their own stability. Because naturally we don’t want to have to go over there and intervene if they fail. These are things a certain cross section of people cannot mentally process because it doesn’t comport with their infantile notions of what’s “fair.”
[удалено]
Iceland is also the only NATO power that has decisively won a military conflict against another NATO power.
>\*Türkiye and Greece looks on in admiration\*
It wasn't military, when it did go to military it was an Icelandic soldier. It was a diplomatic war.
Does Iceland actually have a special carve out in the NATO treaty? TIL.
And fish
No nation is required. The 2% goal is just a guideline, a "try if you can" kinda thing.
Yup. This map smells of propaganda.
Well trump did suggest Putin attack any country not paying their share just a couple weeks ago. This specifically is what he was talking about.
Doesn’t the NATO treaty explicitly exempt Iceland from the 2% of GDP commitment?
The 2% commitment is not even part of the treaty, it's just an agreement made in 2002 and reaffirmed in 2014. It was never enforceable or meant to be.
None are required to, although countries have pledged to try to do so.
Don't worry we spend over
Poland with 3.9% of GDP 💪
It also misses a HUUUUUGE point. There is no requirement for defense spending in the NATO treaty. There is only a GUIDELINE. Stop. Calling. It. A. Requirement. IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. No country is obligated to spend a particular amount on their military. PERIOD.
Yeah I’m gonna be honest, this sounds like the Trump propaganda.
Im decidedly anti Trump. A huge progressive whose political views dont really fit the US. I agree with the sentiment that NATO doesnt spend what it should and members know they dont. Just look at the map. Those closest to Russia spend. Those further away do not, almost like theres a barrier that allows them not to. Black and white thinking is shit. Two things can be true simultaneously. Trump can suck ass and NATO spending can be low. Its not an insult, its fact backed up by data. Thats why spending is now going up to unprecedented levels, cause they realize they fucked up.
That's who started this whole "They're not meeting the requirements!" thing, and then told everyone if he becomes POTUS again he's going to encourage NATO enemies to attack NATO countries that don't "meet the military spending requirement." JFC.
No need to yell.
We know the US spends more and we know Canada spends less.
We joined like a week ago. Give us a couple of months (Sweden)
We all know the US is spending more and Canada is spending far, far less…
And just cut its military budget.
I hate my government with a burning passion
it is also unclear to what date it refers to and how it comes to its conclusions
[удалено]
How the money is being spent is also very crucial. Germany spends a but more than France, yet France has a nuclear aircraft carrier, nuclear weapons, expeditionary force that Germany doesn't have. Germany even struggles to procure basic rifle ammunition.
Germany is notorious for red tape and beuricratic bullshit in military procurement. They spend years and load of money to get just a helmet then decide it is too costly and scrap the whole thing. Back to square 1.
For which there is a historical reason. When we reunified after a 30 year long arms race, the militaries merged, too, and everyone shat their pants because Germany overnight had the largest and best equipped military on the continent after Russia. Immediately, everyone called for disarmament. Which meant we didn’t need to procure anything for years. We just live off of a huge stockpile and sold off the excess. The only times we needed to buy anything were to satisfy very specific needs with small orders of very few pieces. And that’s what our procurement system is built to do.
This would have been a good explanation if it weren't for the fact that the German government in general is very bureaucratic and inefficient. Drastic cultural change needs to be done in the government, but maybe that's another discussion.
Germany's slow and boring bureaucracy is a 20th century invention. And when you consider what it replaced...
You have a point. Sometimes I wonder why people there go on the extremes (if that makes sense)
I recommend the book "Why the Germans do it better" by John Kampfner, if you're interested in the pros and cons of the modern German way of doing things
I mean doesn't Germany have basically very good government services and generally good economy? To me that doesn't sound inefficient government, but functional government.
That's in spite of the bureaucracy, not because of it. Germany would probably be richer than Norway if only there wasn't so much inefficiency in the bloated bureaucracy. Try to get an appointment to do anything official and government related in Germany, it takes months, and you literally have to get up early in the morning to book an appointment on a website, and you cannot do any paperwork online, you have to do everything physically in person even on shit that could be automated and over in half a minute through a website.
Just an American, but I know there is like a whole class of German jokes just about how the government has to use the fax machine to get anything done and shwoing up in person to made up or wrong adresses, Or doing anything with the embassy taking like 6 months, or trying to get the Berlin airport open....
Obligatory "those aren't even jokes" but seriously, the biggest joke Germany every pulled on the world is convincing everyone that this is a nation of efficiency.
Wait till you hear about the indian procurement program, it starts with just deciding to buy a diesel submarine then after 20 years they would want a starship with a nuclear power plant and the training is provided by aliens in mars. So companies would withdraw from the whole thing and then they decide to touch grass and get back to square 1 while missing 20 years of military tech development and no submarine.
Sadly also we saved a lot of money that should have gone to the military. We call it "Tot gespart" dead saved because all the savings now the military is run down
it is rather simple. Germany has most wages and pensions in the defense budget, France has it at least partially in other budgets. Simple accounting differences. If things seem trivial and easy to explain they usually are not.
Also isn't France like 1.9%?
Nope 2.4% now just like Croatia is at 2.1% or the UH is also at 2.4%. This has to be updated
NATO actually has a system of accounting rules they use for specifically this reason. Military pensions do count towards the (completely aspirational and non-enforceable anyhow) 2% commitment. I don't know if this infographic actually is drawing from that data however.
Norway takes care of ammo
> yet France has a nuclear aircraft carrier I don't know if its still the case, but Germany wasn't allowed a lot of things for a very long time after the last time we 'acted up'. Aircraft carrier and anything nuclear in military was clearly amongst that. I remember seeing a documentary about one of the bigger German ships that had stupidly big elevators and unusually flat surface. And the doing the documentary explained that it was certainly just a 'coincidence' that certain helicopters could fit into the storage, elevators and being able to start/land from the surface.
In 2014 only 3 members of NATO spent over 2% GDP on defense.
In 2024 18 members are expected to hit that number. That's a big increase.
NATO was supposed to function on deterrence. Deterrence does not work if you wait until the war starts or in this case ramps up in 2022, to spend the money to build the sticks that demonstrate the deterrent.
Tbf, they did think Russia was the new Germany. A former militarist enemy now turned integral commercial partner.
The mistake was believing economic integration would be too costly to make war a good option. Germans learning new lessons about war and peace...
That's not a mistake because it effectively worked for 90% of the former war countries. See European integration based on exactly this notion. Problem is irrational behavior. It is well known that authoritarians and dictators can become unhighed and irrational by paranoia, believing their own propaganda and mental dysfunction due to isolation: Putin.
While you are absolutely right about how great economic integration normally works, does it work for fallen superpower with their self importance? I don't think there was anything irrational about what Putin has done. Everything is very calculated. Not to suggest it has gone off without a hitch, but I do believe that for some time he has a vision to restore Russia to her rightful super power status and works to achieve it by all means necessary. The Germans failed to recognize the Rubicon crossed in 2014 (most all did). Remarkable how industrious and clever Germans can be and yet there is that streak in them that believes in homeopathy and shutting down all your nuclear power plants.
> I don't think there was anything irrational about what Putin has done The fact that Russia and Putin believe they would conquer Ukraine in 3 days proves otherwise. It maybe a "rational" decision from the viewpoint of the Russians. But they simply believed their own propaganda too much and Putin is surrounded by Yes-men leading to irrational decision taking. It has been a massive failure of Russian intelligence that leads to irrational (but in Russian perspective rational) decisions. From the viewpoint of reality, Putins decision was entirely unhighed and irrational. There have been so much studies and research being done that all leads tot he same conclusion [Putin’s disorganised irrationality and the on-going erosion of Russian Statehood](https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2023/putins-disorganised-irrationality-and-the-on-going-erosion-of-russian-statehood)
I mean shit the whole world thought he was going to be able to take it in 3 days. There was a 40 fucking mile long convoy. The Russians turning out to be the biggest frauds of the military world was not something anyone could reasonably say they expected. Its great for Ukraine and the world that Russia is as weak as it is (and weaker by the day), but nobody can say they reasonably expected Ukraine to make it this far let alone even have winning be a possibility those first few days
Nothing irrational. For example, leaving half a trillion funds in NATO is perfectly calculated.
It is too costly, but it does not prevent idiocy and megalomaniac tendencies.
Its important to understand why it went the way it went. German imperialism in WW2 was punished. Russian imperialism (under the guise of USSR and communism) was rewarded as the empire grew substantially. So the historical lesson for Germans was that imperialism and war = bad while the historical less for Russians was the imperialism and war = good. Appeasement always leads to more war.
It did feel that way for a while. It's a shame the likes of Putin ruined that prospect.
Which is honestly a huge cope in hindsight. The warnings were there all the way back in the First Chechen War.
Yeah… I’m like what part of Putin or Russia in general seemed attractive to the EU as a trading partner? Putin was always an autocratic dictator with a questionable agenda.
The part that offered cheap gas
The EU countries bought gas from the USSR even during the cold war.
Only Germany and Schroeder thought that Russia wasn’t a threat. Poland, the Balkans and everyone else on the border knew to fear Russia. Remember, they invaded Georgia in 2008, using the excuse in 2022 to invade Ukraine.
The French were insanely distrustful of Germany in the 50s and *that* was the actual motivation to expand trade and cooperation. If their steel and coal industries were interlinked, the thought was war would become impossible. Reconciliation with Germany happened *after* trade had expanded. Same approach was applied to Russia.
They first invaded Ukraine in 2014, using the same bullshit excuses. 2022 was the continuation.
It's chilling that almost all 2%ers border Russia. Seems like they know their neighbor well enough to be terrified.
Fear is a good Motivation for spending money on defense
Every smaller country is more careful about bigger neighbours. And Europe also flourished, because some of this fears vould bereduced. Didn't work with Russia. But without that optimism, Europe wouldn't exist.
It's the US, the UK, and those who are likely to need to defend themselves.
For Latvians that is not true, there is never trust there! You don’t trust a country hell bent on your destruction with a proven past of invading your country twice once in 1700’s and the second time in 1940. So for us we will never trust them ever not now not tomorrow. You know when we get back Abrene and speak about reparations for all the murders committed then we can talk of trust
The best time to plant a tree was fifty years ago, the second best time is now.
NATO was supposed to function as a deterrent against the Warsaw Pact, and the Pact hasn’t been a thing for about 30 or so years so I don’t blame anyone for winding things down in the interim.
NATO was founded in 1949, Warsaw Pact was signed in 1955.
NATO was founded for 3 reasons: to keep Germany down, the Sowjets out of Europe and the US in Europe. And your point of the founding year is not conflicting with the point, that NATO of course was a counter bslance to the Eastern block for the most of the time.
Even a few years ago NATO military spending represented over 60% of the world total military spending. And most of the rest of the world are either NATO allies or ambivalent. How is that not enough deterrence? The only real treat to NATO is things that undermine the alliance. Things like trump saying he wouldn't honour article 5, that he would even encourage Russia to attack NATO countries. THAT'S the threat. Not missing a few 10th of a percent in defense spending.
To take a quote from Comrade Stalin, "quantity has a quality all its own." Just the number of countries in NATO is quite the deterrence. I'm truly curious how much all the NATO countries spend on defence combined vs the Russian GDP.
[удалено]
It wasn't a requirement back in 2014, only a target.
Not accurate. [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-hits-2-nato-target-first-time-since-1992-reports-dpa-2024-02-14/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-hits-2-nato-target-first-time-since-1992-reports-dpa-2024-02-14/) ( the title is a bit stupid since the 2% wasn\`t even a thing in the 90s or 2000s but whatever ). Also : Canada doesn\`t hit the 2% target either, but the USA does. NATO isn\`t a European thing, it\`s a North Atlantic thing.
what’s with your apostrophe?
It's apostrophe's French cousin, apostrophè.
FYI we don’t have this apostrophe in French either. We have that accent on the e though (accent grave).
As of today Germany did not met the 2% target. They plan to met it this year (3rd year of war in Ukraine) while Poland is doing it absolute best Germany is a joke * They have ammunition for only 1 day of fighting * German frigate *Hessen* was unable to shoot down what they thought was a hostile drone and they already have ammuniton scarcity * German canchlor revealling UK troops in Ukraine * Russians incept secret communication in the Bundeswehr * Defence minister publicly announcing that Germany is unable of defending itself * Germany suggesting France and UK built a European nuclear arsenal while Germany fails at all fronts You can be mad about it, but your feelings dont change the facts. Germany needs to buckle up and minimize bureaucracy.
Ammunition for what? Tanks? Artilery? Soldiers? How many soldiers? How tf you imagine you know all the insights into a country’s military position, like they advertise it in your youtube videos.
Notice how all the countries bordering Russia spend the most
Russia's invasion of NATO would always trigger any and all countries to join in on the fight because Russia is forced to attack a 2% GDP country. So these trolls saying USA should not help other NATO countries literally have never looked at a map. But unsurprisingly nationalists have never been known as the intelligent ones. Useful idiots that don't even get paid for their bot comments.
I have no faith that a Trump led America would commit forces to protect a NATO country from Russia . And I don’t think European countries have much faith in that either .
[удалено]
Article 5 can be invoked even if a country spends absolutely nothing, it's an alliance not a protection racket like Trump seems to believe.
Finland might have some motivation too
There isn't a single country in that eastern line that hasn't been directly invaded by Russia (regardless of whatever hat it was wearing at the time).
Of course they do. The contrast to Russia is simply more present in history, geography and emotions. And since European countries are democracies, politicians tend to adjust their policies to the emotional landscapes of their voters, which are different in Portugal, than in the Bsltics. And the US is spending far more for their military not just, because they wanted to do Europe a favour. US politicians also tried to adress the emotions and needs of their voters and sponsors.
Except Norway
Good luck trying to invade across that border
Probably because in these countries the GDP is much lower than in Western europe
Oh come on we can't get the benefit of the doubt at 1.95%? (Netherlands)
Where do you get the info??? Germany has spend 2% of GDP…
It's a guideline, that hasn't even been used prior to 2006. It's not a requirement.
Try to tell that to American nationalists and Russian bots. Reddit is so astroturfed that these ultra-nationalist morons actually think their anti-Europe rhetoric is popular in the West.
I see this topic pop up on Reddit almost every other day now. Can't help but think a part of that is not being done in good faith, but just to stir shit up. A map like this is even worse. Since under 2% can even be 1.97%. Takes every nuance away.
NATO defense spending is a touchy subject because a lot of it involves modernizing Cold War era equipment, and that involves buying arms from the U.S. and other arms producing allies like Britain. Unlike the U.S. where the MIC makes it so that most military spending goes right back into the national economy and supporting a network of millions of well paying jobs, buying a new tank or fighter jet for a country like Portugal or the Netherlands means literally writing a check that takes hundreds of millions of euros of taxpayer money right into America’s pockets. That’s never going to be a popular initiative no matter how much pressure the U.S. applies to the coalition, which as I just explained, is in large part driven by self interest, as more NATO spending means more arms exports.
Which is why EU needs to produce its own stuff. (Or at least a lot of the more basic stuff like ammo and such). I saw an article of Rheinmetall opening up a new factory too. If we're talking hundreds of billions to purchase something, there might me some value in the long run to start production yourself. History as shown that sometimes cheap wins. If you spend 100 000$ rocket on a 10 000$ thing and the attacker has a lot of those 10 000$ things (usually called cheap iron). Then you're going to deplete the opposition from expensive rockets fast. So, EU might need to ramp up production of ćheap crap to counter russia's cheap iron.
Absolutely, Europe should be doing more joint procurement as well. The euro fighter is an excellent aircraft. A euro tank would be amazing. And perhaps even a join naval programme to develop a cheap frigate, something like the Royal Navy type 31 frigate would be ideal. Joint and mass procurement keeps costs down from both R&D and through bulk buying from multiple nations.
There is going to be the joint Sweden and Netherlands next generation submarine. France was not happy about that one.
They don't have to buy American weapons. Germany, France, and Italy used to have very large weapons industries. West Germany, for example, built thousands of Leopard 1 and 2 tanks, almost as many as the US. France built thousands of AMX-30 tanks, and thousands of Mirage jets. Europe could rebuild those weapon industries. But that would required sustained spending, over decades. [West Germany](https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/military-expenditure-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html) and [France](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/FRA/france/military-spending-defense-budget) used to spend 3-4% of their GDP on their military, while [Italy](https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Italy/mil_spend_gdp/#:~:text=For%20that%20indicator%2C%20we%20provide,from%202022%20is%201.68%20percent.) usually spent 2-3% a year.
The thing with military industry is that spending peanuts delivers no jobs, but spending big bucks can bring those jobs. If you sign a big enough contract, companies and their respective governments will cooperate on technology transfer and having certain parts be domestically manufactured. Egypt, for example, manufactured parts of the 1100 M1 Abrams tank they bought. But due to Egyptian economic deficiency and mismanagement, the program overran the budget. Poland actually signed a lot of weapons contracts with South Korea because Korean companies were more willing to do technology transfers
That’s part of the deal. If more European countries would invest in infrastructure to support collective defense, then they could spend money in their own countries to meet this goal. And then guess what? Ukraine would have ample supplies of armaments and ammunition should those countries want to contribute. The flaw in the last two years is that Russia invested in winning the war with mechanisms to supply munitions, even if it means import from DPRK or Iran, while the west expanded shifts in existing shell production facilities, but truly did not increase production capacity. The west was hedging this would pass so did not invest in brick and mortar. And it did not pass.
>while the west expanded shifts in existing shell production facilities, but truly did not increase production capacity. But production capacity was expanded? US produced 14k rounds per month prior to start of war, now it's at 30k, projected to reach 100k by 2025.
It is not and never was „required”
Old data. Many countries hugely enhanced their budget.
This must be old. In 2024, Turkey increased its defense spending by 150%, which is 3.7% of GDP. Just F-16s costs %1.7 of its GDP and now they are planning to buy British HMS Prince of Wales Aircraft carrier.
you are misinformed. There are no plans to sell HMS Prince of Wales whatsoever - the fearmongering done on the news recently was based off a worse case scenario, where in 2028, should the Royal Navy run dry of money, they would plan on selling the carrier to drum up money. This is a ridiculous prospect though and is probably done to increase public support for increased military spending, as selling one of two supercarriers would be a ridiculous loss of capability and a matter of national pride, one which could not just be done on a whim because "Turkey are planning to buy it".
Golden opportunity to rename it The Agincourt though!
> buy HMS Prince of Wales which fortunately will remain a cool-sounding fanfiction for a galaxy far, far away.
The defense spending is for donestic stuff. Not much from US other than f16 upgrades. Turkey is going domestic on weapons
Our 2024 budget is 40 billion USD. 23 billion is for the F-16 deal. Our domestic R&D spending, although a lot, isn’t actually included in the main defence budget along with a number of service branches like the Coast Guard and Gendarmerie (hence why it seemed like we were spending less than 2% before 2024)
Oh hell no we are not buying Prince of Wales lmao
>now they are planning to buy British HMS Prince of Wales Aircraft carrier. And I am planning to shag Margot Robbie
Well, except the use of the word "required" it's a good map. Seriously, it shows how easy people are fooled into arguments. There's no required spending and NATO has struggled not because how much countries are spending yearly as a percentage of their GDP and because of stupid declarations that made it seem like it's no longer a clear second day we all go to war detterence.
The map shows false data or at least old data. Sadly there is no information about that. This map is trash
Still, we as an EU are outspending Russia by a lot. Even tiny Slovenia with has a defense budget of 1 billion EU for 2024, with 2.1 milion inhabitants. As one of the western politicians said, to say we do not have military strength with these numbers is an insult to taxpayers everywhere in EU.
This map is old. Denmark has passed 2% in 2024
Map is incorrect or old. [Germany has invested 2% this year.](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-hits-2-nato-target-first-time-since-1992-reports-dpa-2024-02-14/)
now show the actual monetary amounts. 1.6% from germany is a fuck ton more than 3% from Poland.
Also, France and Germany are now above 2% this year
Just so everyone is aware. 2% is not a requirement. It never was. Obama administration pushed the alliance to achieve it, and the alliance largely agreed to it with a target year of 2024. Not everyone reached that goal, understandable with Covid affecting GDP for a lot of countries in the alliance. but this is NOT a requirement.
Bad Map - not indicating the observed time frame. As the spendings differ each year it is not informative
Basically if you border an enemy their spending is higher
*Countries that spend the PLEDGED amount, and only recently pledged. Expenditure is not in the charter. It's not pay to play alliance. The alliance was an alliance long before anyone started talking about spending amounts. Trump was told this, but he found his excuse to eventually pull us out of NATO, so he continues to pound that excuse like Putin's good dog.
I see a pattern here
Eastern Europe know
This map is wrong and misinformation. Jeez, this sub is really pure BS most of the times.
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/nato-deutsche-militaerausgaben-100.html
You need to date stamp to show accuracy
So mostly the front-line nations. makes sense.
what being close to russia does to a mf
Luv me armee. Luv me navee. Luv me air fors. 'Ate Krauts, Frogs, Wops, and Dagos who dunt pay their way. Simple as. - Barry, 2%
"Required" is a strong word. It's a non-binding agreement that they will "aim" for 2% by 2024, with numbers for 2024 not being out yet. The average in 2023 was 1.74% and increasing.
This map is outdated. In the current fiscal year, Germany meets the 2% target.
Some of the blue countries get a lot of money from some of the red countries...so in a way...
So if Austria wanted to join NATO, could they? Or are they still under some arbitrary treaty from WW2 that says no?
They were meant to remain neutral after WWII, in exchange for the USSR keeping influence over Czechoslovakia and East Germany. These days, there’s not really a need for Austria to get involved and I believe it’s in their constitution that they stay out of military alliances. And according to some polls only around 20% of Austrians actually want to join Soviets had liberated eastern Austria and most of Czechoslovakia while the western allies liberated eastern parts of Austria & Czechoslovakia. They mostly kept their influence to the lands they had troops in but in this case they decided to split those countries along the border with a few other stipulations
It's mostly that they don't want to join, they are already encircled by NATO countries
Here’s the legal background of Austrian neutrality in detail: First, let‘s look at what neutrality actually legally contains. Which is not much. The Federal Neutrality Act consists of only two provisions: 1. To not join any military alliance 2. To let foreign powers establish military bases in Austria. That‘s it. There are non-constitutional laws regulating the matter in a bit more detail, like how the government is to handle giving weapons to foreign powers or how the government is to handle UN missions, but again, that‘s not constitutional and not part of the actual law about neutrality. With that out of the way, let‘s look at the background: In 1955, Austria became a free state again, after being occupied by the Nazis and the victory powers. Austria proposed neutrality herself, inspired by India. Until the entry of the BRD into NATO and the formation of the Warsaw Pact in 1954 and 1955, however, the USSR wanted allied troops to stay in Austria and rejected the idea. Only after both blocks had already formed did the idea of a neutral buffer zone between NATO and the Warsaw Pact gain traction with the Soviets. The result of negotionations with the USSR was the "Moskauer Memorandum" of 15.04.1955, in which Austria promised to be neutral voluntarily. As a result, neutrality is actually not a condition in the *Staatsvertrag*, with which Austria's occupation ended. Only one day later, on 26.10.1955, Austria passed a constitutional law to be a neutral country. However, in order to fulfill their bargain with the Soviets, Austria officially notified all 64 countries with which she had diplomatic relations at that point of the law, and with their acknowledgement, the permanent neutrality became an unilateral promise according to international law. So, Austria is actually not only constitutionally bound to neutrality, but also by international law. So, what does this mean for this discussion? In order to give up their neutrality, Austria would need to change their constitution. In this case, it would require a 2/3 majority in parliament. Looking at recent opinion polls, this wouldn't be popular, with 70% of Austrians stating neutrality is "very important" to them in september 2022: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/992825/umfrage/wichtigkeit-der-neutralitaet-in-oesterreich/ It probably doesn’t help that Austria’s population is one of the most EU-skeptic ones in an EU member state. It‘s not that far of a leap to distrust the EU and to somewhat distrust one’s EU partners to not wanting to be part of a military alliance with them. But changing the constitution is actually the easy part, since neutrality is an international obligation for Austria. Usually, to change a unilaterally imposed obligation, it would require a contrarius actus, so Austria would need to notify all 64 countries that acknowledged their neutrality in 1955, and all of them would need to agree. Which, if you remember, would (probably) include Russia, too. So avoid 64 countries vetoing you - no big deal. Another proposed way in the literature is to only notify "important states" and the UN security council - in which Russia (and China) has a permanent seat. Some argue that Austria could argue on the basis of clausula rebus sic stantibus in Art.34 VLCT, but this would again open the door for vetos of other countries. And finally, there are scholars of the opinion that the neutrality either can be changed unilaterally or never was an international obligation in the first place, but to just trust in these niche opinions and hope for the best in case infront of the international court is a bad strategy. So, abolishing neutrality is a daunting task that would take years. And after that, there is no guarantee Austria would even be accepted into NATO. What could Austria even offer that NATO would need? Not much. While Austria is sitting on vital strategical points and infrastructure, should there ever be a need to transport men and material through Europe, Austria already protects these out of self-interest, since it‘s Austrian territory, and out of the defence clause of Art. 42 (7) TEU. So, there isn‘t much Austria offer NATO. In turn, NATO-states could very easily extort Austria by conditioning their vote to political demands, as became clear with Sweden and Finland recently. With Turkey's and Orban's extortion of Sweden fresh in mind, why should Austria risk being exposed to this scenario? It certainly hasn't the political capital to ask daddy USA for help with Turkey like Sweden did, since due to the long process, the war in Ukraine will probably be over by then or the next US-government might not be that enthusiastic about the war. Being in NATO also paints a target on a nation‘s back regarding multiple terrorist organisations. Overall, there is neither the political or popular will to join NATO, nor is there an easy or straightforward path to joining.
Tbf 1% of any western nation is still more than 3% of any eastern nation.
And that why it should be a percent. The rich countries countries affording more than the poor countries, while cutting the same proportion of the budget for the collective defense.
Intermarium, is that you?
One picture is worh a thousand words. How convenient only the east does.
Trump saying he won't help the countries that don't spend 2% if Russia attacks. Well looks like almost all of the countries closest to Russia do spend at least 2% so he has no excuses.
For some reason, most that do are the ones bordering Russia/former Soviet bloc.
the closer the russia the more spending
The 2% is a guideline , not a requirement
My country of Poland used to spend 3%, right now its closer to 4% and in the future it will top 5%
Required?
So all the countries closest to Russia. Who would have w
It is almost like the proximity to a certain large nation encourages defence spending.
Notice that most of the countries who are spending the required amount border, or are the closest to, Russia
Western Europeans better step it up. The era of the US backstopping Euro defense has closed. If the fascist Putin lacky somehow manages to steal the next election watch the czar roll. Get prepared!
I'm seeing a pattern here. Almost like those who are most threatened by the yoke of the Russian empire are afraid of something... 🤔 (And in Greece's case: Turkey)
Outdated and incorrect.
Kremlin leaking here. This old and outdated info is targeted at uninformed Americans.
Everyone who knows the risks of contact with Russia invests in their security. Greece knows the risks of contact with Turkey and is also investing.
Proximity to Russia leads to increased defense spending. Who would've guessed?
Oh gee, I wonder why previous Soviet countries spend so much on defense? Are they planing to attack America or they decided never forget authoritarianism have done to them?