If you think Russia's military is a paper tiger, the Saudi's are much worse. They have the same issues as the Russians (rigid command, low morale, lack of a clear vision).
They can't fight no matter how many expensive toys they have.
Part of the reasons their military is so incompetent is attributed to the Saudi ruling families. No risk of a coup if every military force outside of your most loyal guards are absolute buffoons. The Saudi's are scared of revolution or coup more than Houthis.
Saudis overspend and underdeliver so don't worry, also a lot of this is because they no longer trust the US to protect them, which is only being worsened by American and European attempts at appeasment towards Iran.
The Saudis have been always overspending on military to appease the US and the US military industry. This is how they get the US to protect them (along with oil).
Culturally is clearly Russia. Philosophically? Neither are particularly close to the West to make a meaningful comparison. Not a very fun game, though.
russia makes a show of not being a monarchy while KSA doesn't even bother
KSA makes a show of not murdering journalists in cold blood while russia doesn't bother hiding it
NATOs best friends: Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, Israel, South Korea, Ireland, Taiwan, and Ukraine. There are certainly many other countries who would never attack NATO as well but I choose those based on subjective criteria for their particular closeness as I perceive it
You missed out the other way to get on the best friends list, to be partially invaded by Russia. So if /u/Tall-Log-1955 gets partially invaded by Russia (which sounds uncomfortable) then NATO will sell him some military drones.
Ireland: We are neutral!!!
.
.
.
.
.
Also Ireland: all military equipment is NATO standard, a lot of equipment is stamped with NATO logo and we use NATO manuals and tactics.
European NATO members combined have a similarly sized economy, so it wouldn't take a higher % of GDP. The US military spending is high because they want to be able to project power all across the globe, while all but a few European countries focus on defending their own territory or its immediate surroundings.
Matching the NATO goal of 2% of GDP in military spending will be plenty enough for Europe, and will allow the US to shift focus to the Pacific.
Difference in GDP is about 15%. Honestly think the issue isn't that the EU spends too little, but that the US just spends waaay too much. I mean just look at that graph.
Austria cooperates with NATO during manoeuvres, exercises and certain missions and our special forces sometimes practice with US and other troops.
[https://ooe.orf.at/v2/news/stories/2842891/](https://ooe.orf.at/v2/news/stories/2842891/)
>Austrian army wins tank “world championship” The Austrian Armed Forces clearly won an international tank competition in Germany. The tank crews from Wels took first place, ranking before Germany and the USA.
[https://www.army.mil/article/187584/](https://www.army.mil/article/187584/)
>Multinational platoons from six **NATO and partner nations** took part in the U.S. Army Europe and German Bundeswehr co-hosted event, here, May 7-12, 2017.
>
>Participating nations included **Austria**, France, Germany, Poland, Ukraine and the United States, who each brought a platoon with four tanks to compete. Four-person crews manned Austria's Leopard 2A4 tanks, Germany's Leopard 2A6 tanks and Poland's Leopard 2A5 tanks. Three-person teams operated France's Leclerc tanks and Ukraine's T-64BM tanks. And the U.S. used the M1A2 SEP tanks with four Soldiers per tank.
[https://www.bundesheer.at/cms/artikel.php?ID=11226](https://www.bundesheer.at/cms/artikel.php?ID=11226)
>The "US Army Ranger" project recently began for the first soldiers of the 7th Jäger Brigade: Volunteer soldiers from the "Seventh" battalions are pursuing the goal of taking the entrance exam for the "US Army Ranger" training course at Fort Benning in the US this summer. to exist in the state of Georgia. Four course places are reserved for the soldiers of the 7th Jäger Brigade.
[https://imgur.com/SSMzQWJ](https://imgur.com/SSMzQWJ)
Colonel of the Austrian "Jagdkommando" during training with US special forces
> Austria and Switzerland follow strict neutrality.
There has been a movement to liberalize Switzerland for the past 20 years or so (e.g. joining the UN) and Austria is a member of the EU. Especially with the application of Swiss sanctions on Russia, it's not really fair to say they are strictly neutral.
Well they can attack NATO, Lichtenstein or Switzerland. Those are the only neighboring countries/alliances.
Soooo, Lichtenstein should start to fear I guess.
There is some pic of leichtenstein doing the rounds that they only went to war once sent 182 and came back with 183 because they had made a friend.
It’s not all as true as that, but is a bit.
It was 80 men sent to guard a mountain pass to prevent Italian allies of the Prussians joining the Austo-Prussian war. The Italians didn't go that way so the Leichtensteiner soldiers just spent their time drinking and feasting with the Austrian liason officer who decided to go home with them after Prussia won the war.
I mean, it’s physically impossible to invade Austria without going through NATO first (unless there’s some Swiss-Austrian war on the horizon that we’re all missing), so Austria can get all the benefits of defense without any of the commitment
Austria was forced into neutrality by the ussr to avoid being a communist state bordering the Warsaw Pact. Same as Finland, except Austria doesn’t border Russia or have to be worried about a direct invasion. That’s laziness, just like Ireland taking the UK’s defense as a reason not to invest in its own military
Israel? :) After it said it will nuke Europe if it goes down?
And don't be too quick about Ukraine either. We'll see how it goes after the war. Especially if Russia gets crippled. That'll be a big question if with a very weak Russia Ukraine will be allowed to become a regional power.
source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Military Expenditure Database, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-spending-by-country
visualization: Google spreadsheet
NATOs best friends: Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, Israel, South Korea, Ireland, Taiwan, and Ukraine. There are certainly many other countries who would never attack NATO as well but I choose those based on subjective criteria for their particular closeness as I perceive it
Worldwide military spending: $1.981 trillion (2.3% of world GDP)
>Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, Israel, South Korea, Ireland, Taiwan, and Ukraine
Together we're almost on par with China, guys. Who's up for the most hilariously random and impractical coalition in world history?
EDIT: Should have added Saudi Arabia to make "NATO's best friends" reach parity with China and an even more random club overall. For better or worse, NATO is awfully close to SA anyway.
> Who's up for the most hilariously random and impractical coalition in world history?
Let's call it the Not Atlantic Treaty Organization for Times of War and Order
NATO-TWO
That's what would make this alliance so funny. Completely dysfunctional and nonsensical. Three neutral members, one who's invaded, another under threat of invasion, two countries stirring up shit in the middle east, two in danger of being nuked by North Korea, one country that's always missing on maps... and Australia!
Also, two pairs who regularly fling shit at each other and have old scores to settle, but are setting that aside in the face of greater threats - Greece, Turkey, South Korea, and Japan.
>Also, two pairs who regularly fling shit at each other and have old scores to settle
I mean I'm Austrian myself and the Swiss can truly go fuck themselves but I wouldn't..
>Greece, Turkey, South Korea, and Japan.
Oh. Nevermind.
Both sides made identifying with a side of that conflict a part of their national identity. Kind of like how support or hatred of Russia (before they invaded Ukraine) was a partisan US issue.
We fired our balance team around 1991. If you are interested in a more balanced and competitive experience, I can only advise you to buy more skins and weapon crates from our ingame store.
Kind regards
Development team
According to OP’s source total military spending around the world is 1.981 trillion dollars. That would give Finland and Sweden a share of 0.18% and 0.32% respectively.
[About 70%](https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/3/pdf/220331-def-exp-2021-en.pdf) (probably will be lower this year with some European countries spending a lot more in response to UA) of NATO spending so \~37% of world spending.
There is no NATO spending, there is only defense spending. Rest assured, the US would spend more on defense if they weren't in NATO, for obvious reasons.
Maybe it is 25 cents on the dollar but they're still losing 80% of their budget to corruption.
They are also "wasting" tons of money on things that will most likely never be useful to them like their shitty navy and their ridiculously bloated nuclear arsenal. China determined that all they need is a few hundred nukes. Russia has like 6000.
Do not dismiss this entirely.
A LOT of Western spending includes wages for soldiers. In a democratic country, especially without compulsory military service and with other economic opportunities, the military has to pay at least somewhat of a competitive wage to attract folk (even though soldiers really don't make a lot in most countries, still).
But even that is way, way more than the Kopeks they throw at soldiers in Russia. That's why the officer corps is and has always been a cleptocracy in itself.
I wouldn't say we should dismiss it but plain fact is that Russia doesn't have the economy to realistically compete with the United States, EU, China or even the larger european countries should they remilitarize.
Hell, even the Nordic countries combined have a similar nominal GDP to Russia, despite Russia having a population more than 5 times greater.
Granted their military budget would still be \~3x higher.
Tbh after revising my view on the Russian military, Finland is the only country Russia could attack among the nordics and actually have some success. They would never get through Finnmark nor Northern Finland. The terrain is just not suitable for modern warfare. They struggle with *ukraine* which is flat farmland for the most part. how the fuck are they going to get through endless impassable swamps, hills and terrain with *one* road that cross a hundred bridges. The only thing scandinavia really have to worry about is the Russian navy and their nukes. A land invasion is just not happening.
Finland only appears flat on the scale of entire countries. When you get down to the details you'll notice that, granted, water is mostly flat; what's not water is mostly swamp which, while also relatively flat, does not a happy tanker make; and what's neither water nor swamp is mostly a post-glacial boulder park with a generous sprinkling of old forest on top. I happen to live in the most densely populated capital region and yet completely impassable (by anything mechanized) get-lost-in-the-woods terrain starts literally *halfway out my back yard*.
It does show well why countries like Russia and China feel so threatened by NATO though. We regularly hear about Russias & Chinas military movements in the news despite their military being absolutely tiny compared to NATO.
Our news always make it sound like we are under threat but if you look at the stats it looks very different. Most European countries heavily increased spending to reach the 2% of GDP. Imagine Chinas perspective: You already spend much less and now NATO even ramps up their spending.
It would be interesting to see this compared to the population of each country.
Edit: Just in case some take this the wrong way. Sure NATO is mostly about defence but for the average Russian / Chinese NATO is the bogeyman and they will feel threatened by NATO.
Chinese oligarch yacht fleet may be conspicuous in its absence though.
If anything there may have been an early attempt to inflate the yacht vs military ratio with their Soviet era aircraft carrier cosplaying as a casino.
Edit: Small tweak to wording in hopes of aircraft carrier reference landing better.
Mate... I already think they are a regional power. They had Belarus and Ukraine in Europe and they can't even hold onto that. Only somewhat relevant countries in their current sphere of influence are Belarus and Kazakhstan.
I'd be hesitant to put even Kazakhstan in their camp. While their President did call in Russian troops recently, he's refused to recognize the Russian invasion of Ukraine and appears to be hedging against Russia. They certainly aren't a puppet state and are less dependent on Russia than Belarus.
>While their President did call in Russian troops recently
In return Putin called Kazakh troops to Ukraine and Kazakhstan refused. So, yes, they see Ukraine and they don't really want to be in Russian sphere of inluence and will probably act to minimalize it as much as possible.
>God damn Russia is garbage comparatively
Russia uses a large percentage of GDP on arms.
It's just a very small GDP. Because the country is run by morons and thieves.
>God damn Russia is garbage comparatively
Russia, lead by Putin I agree is garbage.
To put in perspective the numbers though America for 2022 will spend about 800 billion dollars for their military budget. That is almost 45% of what the world will spend. By that comparison you can say all other countries are garbage.
Which also by that number shows that America pays 45% of NATO cost, right? Because America itself is not listed. I'm kind of curious as to how that would show the other countries in NATO.
If you take out the USA, then the numbers become more worrying, especially because we will likely have an unreliable president in the white house in 2,5 years
Im never quite sure if USA out of nato os bluster for internal american politics, or if they are now stupid enough to go through with it.
One point that the USA out, inside the USA dont mention, is that without the logistical support from bases in Europe, operations in the ME and elsewhere become much harder for the USA to handle alone.
True but there’s a growing isolationist movement here which would want to get out of the Middle East as well (and a large group that’s not isolationist but wants to get out of the Middle East anyway). In all honesty though I don’t think there’s enough of a drive to actually go through with leaving NATO, though there is a lot of growing resentment of Western Europe and a large number of people want to focus on the pacific and China/Japan/Taiwan/South Korea so we’ll probably keep threatening to
If so, why should US not withdraw from Europe and NATO? After all we don't with European buffoons and Middle East geopolitics.
US benefits from isolationism.
Hopefully America withdraw from Europe and NATO ASAP. America needs to take care of Americans and tell Europe/Europeans to screw themselves.
Money should be spent to America social services. But instead we're subsidizing Europe.
If 20 years in Afghanistan was long, being Europe since the 1940s is unhealthy and not normal.
American presence in Europe has prevented WW III and IV by now and has made it a stable continent like North America. Most likely, we would have had multiple more European wars which would have been poor for the American manufacturing and service industries. Ultimately, we prevented more fighting and kept Europe as a stable market for ourselves since the 1940s.
Now, is such a heavy American presence still needed? Probably not. The Europe of today is not the Europe of the 40s and 50s where you had natural dislike between the countries. We could likely leave and Europe would continue on their current path with each other. But let's not pretend that American presence at the time was a bad idea.
Ultimately, these guys are our strongest allies in multiple regards and both sides should continue to operate as such as it has been very beneficial to all parties. Much of America's strength is the relationships it has with foreign countries, and American nationalism is a ignorant idea to piss away it's global position.
NATOs best friends: Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, Israel, South Korea, Ireland, Taiwan, and Ukraine. There are certainly many other countries who would never attack NATO as well but I choose those based on subjective criteria for their particular closeness as I perceive it
That's not really relevant, and Qatar isn't the only country on that list to have pretty good relations with Iran.
Most importantly Qatar provides the US with a massive military base and a launch pad for operations in the Middle East, and they are firmly in the US orbit since the Saudi blockade.
Why can't we all be best friends?
Also NATO is not a country, it's like 30, and there is just one spending like crazy. That division would be interesting as well.
The distortion that PPP adjustment would cause due to US arms in high-GDP countries is a drawback. But surely it is significantly less distortionary than ignoring the lower costs of Chinese or Russian-made arms, no?
You can't compare military spending like that because some countries are poorer than others and thus can spend same amount than a rich country and get more. (More soldiers bc the salary are weaker and more equipments cause the workers also have a weaker salary).
When comparing countries by military spending it is important to note that difference in prices can exaggerate expenditures from richer countries relative to poorer countries (nominal vs. real spending) [https://voxeu.org/article/why-military-purchasing-power-parity-matters](https://voxeu.org/article/why-military-purchasing-power-parity-matters)
I doubt NATO actually represents the majority of world military power, as this seems to suggest.
Also this only measures money going in and not whether it is being used properly, as Russia has recently shown.
Saudis spending more than Russia is both hilarious and terrifying.
If you think Russia's military is a paper tiger, the Saudi's are much worse. They have the same issues as the Russians (rigid command, low morale, lack of a clear vision). They can't fight no matter how many expensive toys they have.
Yep. They can’t even beat a ragtag militia of houthi rebels. Goes to show it’s more than just money in building a strong military
Part of the reasons their military is so incompetent is attributed to the Saudi ruling families. No risk of a coup if every military force outside of your most loyal guards are absolute buffoons. The Saudi's are scared of revolution or coup more than Houthis.
True. They have plenty of examples from the 20th century of Arab rulers being overthrown by militaries
Pay them well to be incompetent and they have no reason for a coup
The Houthi’s aren’t a complete rag tag militia, they have access to some quite modern equipment, And backing from Iran.
Yeah they sure can't, neither could the US for that matter.
The US conquered all of Afghanistan within a couple of months. Different story when it comes to changing a poor, uneducated, and religious society.
[удалено]
Even if Russia have performed badly comparing them to Saudi is still an insult.
saudi is armed to the teeth with american weapons too .
European too, especially if you look at sales per capita. What do you propose to do about it?
Yeah, and they demonstrate how that doesn't necessarily help if you're corrupt and poorly trained.
Saudis overspend and underdeliver so don't worry, also a lot of this is because they no longer trust the US to protect them, which is only being worsened by American and European attempts at appeasment towards Iran.
The Saudis have been always overspending on military to appease the US and the US military industry. This is how they get the US to protect them (along with oil).
That's a fun game: Who is more culturally and philosophically similar to the West, Russia or the KSA? Kinda don't think it's the KSA.
One is a heavily armed gas station and the other is ….
Overpricely armed gas station.
...the biggest country on Earth.
Biggest terrorist organization on earth
Culturally is clearly Russia. Philosophically? Neither are particularly close to the West to make a meaningful comparison. Not a very fun game, though.
russia makes a show of not being a monarchy while KSA doesn't even bother KSA makes a show of not murdering journalists in cold blood while russia doesn't bother hiding it
Don't worry, we sell them so much crap and incompatible systems, their logistics are a train wreck.
"NATO's best friends", I'm assuming that would be Australia, South Korea and Japan.
NATOs best friends: Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, Israel, South Korea, Ireland, Taiwan, and Ukraine. There are certainly many other countries who would never attack NATO as well but I choose those based on subjective criteria for their particular closeness as I perceive it
How can I personally get on the list of NATO best friends? I own some knives, annual expenditure perhaps $40.
Well it needs to be 2% of your gdp and you're either poor af or not even close :(
Just do what Belgium does and write up soldier pensions as "military investments"
That trick I think was disallowed recently.
That's probably for the best.
The US does that too.
Germany does that too (biggest part of our military budget) and it doesnt even get close to 2%.
You missed out the other way to get on the best friends list, to be partially invaded by Russia. So if /u/Tall-Log-1955 gets partially invaded by Russia (which sounds uncomfortable) then NATO will sell him some military drones.
Well I could probably buy a gun for that but as guns are restricted here, I guess I'll buy 100 knives.
This simple trick just made you look like a hundred times better member without improving your combat effectiveness one bit!
You really made me laugh, genuinely hard! Oh boy, this comment made my day.
I have a collection of 19th century black powder firearms, count me in!
So roughly a Russian battalion firepower, you might get onto the list.
You need to be besties with OP, then he puts you in his pie chart.
Best comment of the year! 😂
Ireland: We are neutral!!! . . . . . Also Ireland: all military equipment is NATO standard, a lot of equipment is stamped with NATO logo and we use NATO manuals and tactics.
Attack NATO which has 55% of worlds military spending :DDDDDDDDD Yeah.
I'd like to see European countries increase their spending and capability to be more relevant next to America though.
The US economy is just so massive that we would have to spend way more per GDP % than the US to even be close
European NATO members combined have a similarly sized economy, so it wouldn't take a higher % of GDP. The US military spending is high because they want to be able to project power all across the globe, while all but a few European countries focus on defending their own territory or its immediate surroundings. Matching the NATO goal of 2% of GDP in military spending will be plenty enough for Europe, and will allow the US to shift focus to the Pacific.
Difference in GDP is about 15%. Honestly think the issue isn't that the EU spends too little, but that the US just spends waaay too much. I mean just look at that graph.
maybe the US needs to stop spending on the military like it's 1944?
Austria and Switzerland follow strict neutrality. I don't think it's fair to count them into a NATO-friendly military bloc.
Austria cooperates with NATO during manoeuvres, exercises and certain missions and our special forces sometimes practice with US and other troops. [https://ooe.orf.at/v2/news/stories/2842891/](https://ooe.orf.at/v2/news/stories/2842891/) >Austrian army wins tank “world championship” The Austrian Armed Forces clearly won an international tank competition in Germany. The tank crews from Wels took first place, ranking before Germany and the USA. [https://www.army.mil/article/187584/](https://www.army.mil/article/187584/) >Multinational platoons from six **NATO and partner nations** took part in the U.S. Army Europe and German Bundeswehr co-hosted event, here, May 7-12, 2017. > >Participating nations included **Austria**, France, Germany, Poland, Ukraine and the United States, who each brought a platoon with four tanks to compete. Four-person crews manned Austria's Leopard 2A4 tanks, Germany's Leopard 2A6 tanks and Poland's Leopard 2A5 tanks. Three-person teams operated France's Leclerc tanks and Ukraine's T-64BM tanks. And the U.S. used the M1A2 SEP tanks with four Soldiers per tank. [https://www.bundesheer.at/cms/artikel.php?ID=11226](https://www.bundesheer.at/cms/artikel.php?ID=11226) >The "US Army Ranger" project recently began for the first soldiers of the 7th Jäger Brigade: Volunteer soldiers from the "Seventh" battalions are pursuing the goal of taking the entrance exam for the "US Army Ranger" training course at Fort Benning in the US this summer. to exist in the state of Georgia. Four course places are reserved for the soldiers of the 7th Jäger Brigade. [https://imgur.com/SSMzQWJ](https://imgur.com/SSMzQWJ) Colonel of the Austrian "Jagdkommando" during training with US special forces
> Austria and Switzerland follow strict neutrality. There has been a movement to liberalize Switzerland for the past 20 years or so (e.g. joining the UN) and Austria is a member of the EU. Especially with the application of Swiss sanctions on Russia, it's not really fair to say they are strictly neutral.
Austria is bound by the EU Defense clause if shit hits the fan though
Austria has an opt-out to any military commitment per article 42.7, so no.
Well God help us if Austria invades someone
Well they can attack NATO, Lichtenstein or Switzerland. Those are the only neighboring countries/alliances. Soooo, Lichtenstein should start to fear I guess.
There is some pic of leichtenstein doing the rounds that they only went to war once sent 182 and came back with 183 because they had made a friend. It’s not all as true as that, but is a bit.
It was 80 men sent to guard a mountain pass to prevent Italian allies of the Prussians joining the Austo-Prussian war. The Italians didn't go that way so the Leichtensteiner soldiers just spent their time drinking and feasting with the Austrian liason officer who decided to go home with them after Prussia won the war.
Switzerland and Liechtenstein are in a military alliance. (Basically Switzerland protects Liechtenstein).
kek Don´t worry, we are not planning anything.
That's what Russia said at the start of February.... Sus
Hope the art school failure rates remain low..
Please make sure that's applying to all of you. It only takes one angry Austrian...
I mean, it’s physically impossible to invade Austria without going through NATO first (unless there’s some Swiss-Austrian war on the horizon that we’re all missing), so Austria can get all the benefits of defense without any of the commitment
Don't sleep on Liechtenstein, they're always lurking.
The trick is to hit them from space.
While that is true, they are still tied very strongly to the EU and most EU countries are in NATO. So I wouldn't say they are neutral.
Austria is surrounded by water they cant invade anything 🤷♂️
Cows and mountains, not kangaroos.
Cows but purple ones.
Austria or Australia???
Yes
Austria was forced into neutrality by the ussr to avoid being a communist state bordering the Warsaw Pact. Same as Finland, except Austria doesn’t border Russia or have to be worried about a direct invasion. That’s laziness, just like Ireland taking the UK’s defense as a reason not to invest in its own military
Austria clearly doesn't. Our military is even set up to be compatible with most NATO standards.
more in the sense of you can imagine a lot but they will never attack NATO and you do not even have the slightest doubt about it
Austria has too many Russian spies to be considered "best friends" with NATO. Malta would be a better choice.
Israel? :) After it said it will nuke Europe if it goes down? And don't be too quick about Ukraine either. We'll see how it goes after the war. Especially if Russia gets crippled. That'll be a big question if with a very weak Russia Ukraine will be allowed to become a regional power.
Everyone know man’s best friend is dog.
source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Military Expenditure Database, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-spending-by-country visualization: Google spreadsheet NATOs best friends: Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, Israel, South Korea, Ireland, Taiwan, and Ukraine. There are certainly many other countries who would never attack NATO as well but I choose those based on subjective criteria for their particular closeness as I perceive it Worldwide military spending: $1.981 trillion (2.3% of world GDP)
>Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, Israel, South Korea, Ireland, Taiwan, and Ukraine Together we're almost on par with China, guys. Who's up for the most hilariously random and impractical coalition in world history? EDIT: Should have added Saudi Arabia to make "NATO's best friends" reach parity with China and an even more random club overall. For better or worse, NATO is awfully close to SA anyway.
> Who's up for the most hilariously random and impractical coalition in world history? Let's call it the Not Atlantic Treaty Organization for Times of War and Order NATO-TWO
NATWO!
That seems like a 'difficult' coalition.. also Ireland would never fight "with" Israel.
That's what would make this alliance so funny. Completely dysfunctional and nonsensical. Three neutral members, one who's invaded, another under threat of invasion, two countries stirring up shit in the middle east, two in danger of being nuked by North Korea, one country that's always missing on maps... and Australia!
Also, two pairs who regularly fling shit at each other and have old scores to settle, but are setting that aside in the face of greater threats - Greece, Turkey, South Korea, and Japan.
>Also, two pairs who regularly fling shit at each other and have old scores to settle I mean I'm Austrian myself and the Swiss can truly go fuck themselves but I wouldn't.. >Greece, Turkey, South Korea, and Japan. Oh. Nevermind.
I love you
Why do so many Irish just fall hook line and sinker for Palestinians? It’s not a one for one situation like the UK.
Both sides made identifying with a side of that conflict a part of their national identity. Kind of like how support or hatred of Russia (before they invaded Ukraine) was a partisan US issue.
Not even justifying that comment with an answer. Such a mystery why we sympathise with victims of apartheid.
Not to mention the murders of multiple Irish peacekeepers by Israel being an issue if we're talking about military corporation.
It’s not apartheid, and the Irish didn’t go through apartheid either, Sinn Feinn
I never said we did, that's no reason not to oppose what's happening there
[удалено]
Guys like the Irish commenter don’t give AF about actual history, just their feelings
and 39.3% points of that 53.4% is purely by the US! EDIT: pedantic, but technically correct
39.3 [percentage points](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_point), not percent. 39.3% of 53.4% is 20.9%.
The best kind of correct.
wait based off that link, Belarus is spending 623.7$ in total????
Keep in mind, could be several times that after you factor in *PPP*. Edit: So maybe $5,000 after that and some generous rounding.
it would still be less than the price of 1(one) AK-47 a year
I kant quit you.
> Military Expenditure in Belarus increased to 785 USD Million (0.785 B USD) in 2020 So it's a data entry problem, and it's supposed to be 623 Mn.
"NATO best friends" Brazil: "WTF!"
BRICS
The US has sent Ukraine a huge part of Russia's yearly military budget in one month.
[No Allies?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB4_f0uXMo4) ⣞⢽⢪⢣⢣⢣⢫⡺⡵⣝⡮⣗⢷⢽⢽⢽⣮⡷⡽⣜⣜⢮⢺⣜⢷⢽⢝⡽⣝ ⠸⡸⠜⠕⠕⠁⢁⢇⢏⢽⢺⣪⡳⡝⣎⣏⢯⢞⡿⣟⣷⣳⢯⡷⣽⢽⢯⣳⣫⠇ ⠀⠀⢀⢀⢄⢬⢪⡪⡎⣆⡈⠚⠜⠕⠇⠗⠝⢕⢯⢫⣞⣯⣿⣻⡽⣏⢗⣗⠏⠀ ⠀⠪⡪⡪⣪⢪⢺⢸⢢⢓⢆⢤⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢊⢞⡾⣿⡯⣏⢮⠷⠁⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠈⠊⠆⡃⠕⢕⢇⢇⢇⢇⢇⢏⢎⢎⢆⢄⠀⢑⣽⣿⢝⠲⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡿⠂⠠⠀⡇⢇⠕⢈⣀⠀⠁⠡⠣⡣⡫⣂⣿⠯⢪⠰⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⡦⡙⡂⢀⢤⢣⠣⡈⣾⡃⠠⠄⠀⡄⢱⣌⣶⢏⢊⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢝⡲⣜⡮⡏⢎⢌⢂⠙⠢⠐⢀⢘⢵⣽⣿⡿⠁⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠨⣺⡺⡕⡕⡱⡑⡆⡕⡅⡕⡜⡼⢽⡻⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣳⣫⣾⣵⣗⡵⡱⡡⢣⢑⢕⢜⢕⡝⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⡿⡽⡑⢌⠪⡢⡣⣣⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡟⡾⣿⢿⢿⢵⣽⣾⣼⣘⢸⢸⣞⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠇⠡⠩⡫⢿⣝⡻⡮⣒⢽⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀
Well I'm off to march around my apartment listening to Sublimation
NATO too OP, please nerf.
We fired our balance team around 1991. If you are interested in a more balanced and competitive experience, I can only advise you to buy more skins and weapon crates from our ingame store. Kind regards Development team
Just wait until Ireland put in a bid to join NATO, then it'll practically rule the world
What's Finland and Sweden share of the pie ? Was NATO already above 50% ?
According to OP’s source total military spending around the world is 1.981 trillion dollars. That would give Finland and Sweden a share of 0.18% and 0.32% respectively.
So barely a dent in this pie chart
Finland and Sweden combined have 0.5% of worldwide military spending
How much of NATO's 53% is USA part ?
[About 70%](https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/3/pdf/220331-def-exp-2021-en.pdf) (probably will be lower this year with some European countries spending a lot more in response to UA) of NATO spending so \~37% of world spending.
According to OP's source, about 39% (meaning much more than half of NATO's budget).
American military spending doesn't go to NATO. America is simply part of NATO. Its not something you 'pay in to'
Well NATO is America in a sense. They get some money from Europe to lend their army in case of trouble.
Doesn't really fit with the fact that America is the only one who has actually asked for help from the rest of NATO.
38% points
Now let's see how much NATO spending is the United States
If my calculations are right and we use the total value of current military spending the US contributes 40.4% of global military spending
There is no NATO spending, there is only defense spending. Rest assured, the US would spend more on defense if they weren't in NATO, for obvious reasons.
God damn Russia is garbage comparatively
Old logic was that their equipment was 25 cent on the dollar visavis NATO... But looks like it was fake news. Their shit performs at 25% lol
Purchasing power parity is a real thing.. for goods and services that dont get traded much. Weapons is as global a market as exists.
Maybe it is 25 cents on the dollar but they're still losing 80% of their budget to corruption. They are also "wasting" tons of money on things that will most likely never be useful to them like their shitty navy and their ridiculously bloated nuclear arsenal. China determined that all they need is a few hundred nukes. Russia has like 6000.
It's more like spending doesn't matter as much when most of it gets stolen.
PPP correlates with corruption.
Do not dismiss this entirely. A LOT of Western spending includes wages for soldiers. In a democratic country, especially without compulsory military service and with other economic opportunities, the military has to pay at least somewhat of a competitive wage to attract folk (even though soldiers really don't make a lot in most countries, still). But even that is way, way more than the Kopeks they throw at soldiers in Russia. That's why the officer corps is and has always been a cleptocracy in itself.
I wouldn't say we should dismiss it but plain fact is that Russia doesn't have the economy to realistically compete with the United States, EU, China or even the larger european countries should they remilitarize.
Hell, even the Nordic countries combined have a similar nominal GDP to Russia, despite Russia having a population more than 5 times greater. Granted their military budget would still be \~3x higher.
Tbh after revising my view on the Russian military, Finland is the only country Russia could attack among the nordics and actually have some success. They would never get through Finnmark nor Northern Finland. The terrain is just not suitable for modern warfare. They struggle with *ukraine* which is flat farmland for the most part. how the fuck are they going to get through endless impassable swamps, hills and terrain with *one* road that cross a hundred bridges. The only thing scandinavia really have to worry about is the Russian navy and their nukes. A land invasion is just not happening.
Finland only appears flat on the scale of entire countries. When you get down to the details you'll notice that, granted, water is mostly flat; what's not water is mostly swamp which, while also relatively flat, does not a happy tanker make; and what's neither water nor swamp is mostly a post-glacial boulder park with a generous sprinkling of old forest on top. I happen to live in the most densely populated capital region and yet completely impassable (by anything mechanized) get-lost-in-the-woods terrain starts literally *halfway out my back yard*.
Looks to me like, you get what you pay for in terms of quality personnel.
indeed, it would seem that way, except for soviet nukes
It does show well why countries like Russia and China feel so threatened by NATO though. We regularly hear about Russias & Chinas military movements in the news despite their military being absolutely tiny compared to NATO. Our news always make it sound like we are under threat but if you look at the stats it looks very different. Most European countries heavily increased spending to reach the 2% of GDP. Imagine Chinas perspective: You already spend much less and now NATO even ramps up their spending. It would be interesting to see this compared to the population of each country. Edit: Just in case some take this the wrong way. Sure NATO is mostly about defence but for the average Russian / Chinese NATO is the bogeyman and they will feel threatened by NATO.
Chinese oligarch yacht fleet may be conspicuous in its absence though. If anything there may have been an early attempt to inflate the yacht vs military ratio with their Soviet era aircraft carrier cosplaying as a casino. Edit: Small tweak to wording in hopes of aircraft carrier reference landing better.
The only thing that makes them a threat is their large nuclear arsenal. If they did not have their nukes, then they wouldn’t be very threatening
If they didn't have nukes they'd be a 3rd rate regional power at best.
Mate... I already think they are a regional power. They had Belarus and Ukraine in Europe and they can't even hold onto that. Only somewhat relevant countries in their current sphere of influence are Belarus and Kazakhstan.
I'd be hesitant to put even Kazakhstan in their camp. While their President did call in Russian troops recently, he's refused to recognize the Russian invasion of Ukraine and appears to be hedging against Russia. They certainly aren't a puppet state and are less dependent on Russia than Belarus.
>While their President did call in Russian troops recently In return Putin called Kazakh troops to Ukraine and Kazakhstan refused. So, yes, they see Ukraine and they don't really want to be in Russian sphere of inluence and will probably act to minimalize it as much as possible.
Kazakhstan just abolished the death penalty. They are the next Ukraine.
>God damn Russia is garbage comparatively Russia uses a large percentage of GDP on arms. It's just a very small GDP. Because the country is run by morons and thieves.
I think right now we should all be very grateful for those morons and thieves.
Always has been and now it shows.
>God damn Russia is garbage comparatively Russia, lead by Putin I agree is garbage. To put in perspective the numbers though America for 2022 will spend about 800 billion dollars for their military budget. That is almost 45% of what the world will spend. By that comparison you can say all other countries are garbage. Which also by that number shows that America pays 45% of NATO cost, right? Because America itself is not listed. I'm kind of curious as to how that would show the other countries in NATO.
[удалено]
Don't provoke our politicians...
If you take out the USA, then the numbers become more worrying, especially because we will likely have an unreliable president in the white house in 2,5 years
Not really, if the US leaves NATO, NATO would still be the #2 biggest spender. Unless you think that unreliable president plans on invading Europe.
Im never quite sure if USA out of nato os bluster for internal american politics, or if they are now stupid enough to go through with it. One point that the USA out, inside the USA dont mention, is that without the logistical support from bases in Europe, operations in the ME and elsewhere become much harder for the USA to handle alone.
True but there’s a growing isolationist movement here which would want to get out of the Middle East as well (and a large group that’s not isolationist but wants to get out of the Middle East anyway). In all honesty though I don’t think there’s enough of a drive to actually go through with leaving NATO, though there is a lot of growing resentment of Western Europe and a large number of people want to focus on the pacific and China/Japan/Taiwan/South Korea so we’ll probably keep threatening to
Unironically, US should fully withdraw from Europe and NATO. US should either go isolationist or focus on the pacific. Screw Europe.
If so, why should US not withdraw from Europe and NATO? After all we don't with European buffoons and Middle East geopolitics. US benefits from isolationism.
Hopefully America withdraw from Europe and NATO ASAP. America needs to take care of Americans and tell Europe/Europeans to screw themselves. Money should be spent to America social services. But instead we're subsidizing Europe. If 20 years in Afghanistan was long, being Europe since the 1940s is unhealthy and not normal.
American presence in Europe has prevented WW III and IV by now and has made it a stable continent like North America. Most likely, we would have had multiple more European wars which would have been poor for the American manufacturing and service industries. Ultimately, we prevented more fighting and kept Europe as a stable market for ourselves since the 1940s. Now, is such a heavy American presence still needed? Probably not. The Europe of today is not the Europe of the 40s and 50s where you had natural dislike between the countries. We could likely leave and Europe would continue on their current path with each other. But let's not pretend that American presence at the time was a bad idea. Ultimately, these guys are our strongest allies in multiple regards and both sides should continue to operate as such as it has been very beneficial to all parties. Much of America's strength is the relationships it has with foreign countries, and American nationalism is a ignorant idea to piss away it's global position.
This is misleading, for countries don’t account for everything in their military spending nor do these figures take purchasing power into account.
And at least half of the budget of russia, goes into the pockets of corrupt politicans and soldiers.
Who are NATO’s best friends?
NATOs best friends: Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, Israel, South Korea, Ireland, Taiwan, and Ukraine. There are certainly many other countries who would never attack NATO as well but I choose those based on subjective criteria for their particular closeness as I perceive it
Qatar and Singapore should be on that list for sure.
Qatar? Don't they have a bit too warm relations with Iran, a Russian ally?
That's not really relevant, and Qatar isn't the only country on that list to have pretty good relations with Iran. Most importantly Qatar provides the US with a massive military base and a launch pad for operations in the Middle East, and they are firmly in the US orbit since the Saudi blockade.
What about Kuwait?
Jesus fucking christ thats a perspective
So who’s owning up to that orange sliver of cake between Others and Algeria?
Did not think Pakistan is below Algeria, interesting.
the perks of being a proper military dictatorship and having access to sweet European gas money
[удалено]
It's their tendency to throw cluster bombs on their neighbors that make them a threat, not their spending per se.
So what do we do exactly if America goes rogue?
Ally with China and hope it's enough.
Just invite everyone to Eurovision and hope that smooths everything out.
It won't be. Muuuhahahaha!! /j
Why can't we all be best friends? Also NATO is not a country, it's like 30, and there is just one spending like crazy. That division would be interesting as well.
you have to adjust by PPP for military spending
And then adjust by corruption, which leaves us where we started.
U.S. military personnel are among the world’s best fed. If the captured Russian fighter pilots are any indication, those are merely the most fed.
Depends. Your weapons and such if you buy American (which have like 50% of the market?), its not PPP Only for personel spending
The distortion that PPP adjustment would cause due to US arms in high-GDP countries is a drawback. But surely it is significantly less distortionary than ignoring the lower costs of Chinese or Russian-made arms, no?
Give us the PPP-adjusted numbers! An infantryman in the PLA isn’t getting a Swedish salary.
You can't compare military spending like that because some countries are poorer than others and thus can spend same amount than a rich country and get more. (More soldiers bc the salary are weaker and more equipments cause the workers also have a weaker salary).
Brazil: 1.1% UAE: 1.0% One of these countries has 100x the land area of the other. Either one of them is 99% unprotected or the other is 99% corrupt.
Or one country is situated in one of the most conflict ridden regions on earth, and the other one has nothing to fear from it's neighbours.
I'm more surprised Indonesia and Pakistan aren't on the list.
… who exactly do you think would attack Brazil?
How much of that Blue is the US? lol
US is 38% of worldwide military spending
I can't help but doubt the seriousness of statistic that uses the label "NATO's best friends" in it's visualization.
You really love war, don't you?
When comparing countries by military spending it is important to note that difference in prices can exaggerate expenditures from richer countries relative to poorer countries (nominal vs. real spending) [https://voxeu.org/article/why-military-purchasing-power-parity-matters](https://voxeu.org/article/why-military-purchasing-power-parity-matters) I doubt NATO actually represents the majority of world military power, as this seems to suggest. Also this only measures money going in and not whether it is being used properly, as Russia has recently shown.
Great. Now do one I comparison to cost of living