Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Breaking: NATO allies should spend 4% of gdp on defense per Trump

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorNorth, Jul 11, 2018.

  1. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    65,904
    9,746
    2,743
    Apr 3, 2007
    Miami, OK
    Because the agreement said those countries that are not at 2% should halt any decline. That is something that can be looked at prior to 2024.


     
  2. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    9,001
    739
    478
    Dec 9, 2010
    As I pointed out though, your charts wouldn't be useful for determining that for two reasons:

    1. 2015 spending is going to be determined around September 2014.
    2. The wording of that clause isn't that they will stop the decline in percentage immediately. It says it will stop the decline in expenditure. If your GDP grows and your defense spending stays the same or even increases by a small amount, that figure would show a decline.
     
  3. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    65,904
    9,746
    2,743
    Apr 3, 2007
    Miami, OK
    You obviously didn't read my whole post #34 above, the one with the chart because the second bullet point covers your second point.

    Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
    • halt any decline in defence expenditure;
    • aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
     
  4. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    9,001
    739
    478
    Dec 9, 2010
    Here is an update from NATO:

    Countries that have increased their defense spending as a percentage since 2014:

    Greece (over 2%)
    Estonia (over 2%)
    Latvia (2%)
    Poland
    Lithuania
    Romania
    Turkey
    Norway
    Montenegro
    Bulgaria
    Portugal
    Netherlands
    Germany
    Canada
    Denmark
    Slovak Republic
    Italy
    Czech Republic
    Hungary
    Slovenia
    Spain
    Luxembourg

    Countries declining:
    United States (over 2%)
    United Kingdom (over 2%)
    France (likely due to economic growth)
    Croatia
    Albania
    Belgium

    https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_07/20180709_180710-pr2018-91-en.pdf
     
  5. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    9,001
    739
    478
    Dec 9, 2010
    Which they have done, with the exception of Croatia, Albania, and Belgium. That is why you should have used updated charts.
     
  6. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    62,085
    9,482
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    They might need to pony-up 4% of their GDP to NATO just to keep China from overtaking the world... I know Trump mentions Russia all the time, but I'm quite sure he does not mention China directly because we're trying to negotiate better trade deals with them and insulting China while that's going on would be a "Yuge" diplomatic mistake.
     
  7. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    62,085
    9,482
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    Freaking winner... the Leftists get triggered every time Trump talks.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Gatormb

    Gatormb GC Hall of Fame

    8,992
    498
    558
    Apr 3, 2007
    Bradenton, Fl
    Point is GN, 80% of members are not paying the 2% they promised.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. GatorNorth

    GatorNorth Premium Member Premium Member

    12,194
    1,068
    688
    Apr 3, 2007
    Atlanta
    Of course that’s the point. Everyone knows that’s the point. It’s not a difficult concept. And there was a plan put in place in 2015 for everyone to get there by 2024. Plus a graph earlier in this thread showing how since the 2015 Agreement many countries were increasing their spend. Maybe not fast enough for some but most in fact we’re upping the ante toward the target.

    But throwing out a number that’s even 10-15% higher than we are now spending is just silly. This isn’t about negotiation of a new deal at a target that’s higher than Congress would even approve, it’s about enforcement of the existing target. That’s the point.
     
  10. fastsix

    fastsix Premium Member

    10,436
    1,144
    833
    Apr 11, 2007
    Seattle
    We want them to pay their 2%, but we also want to continue to have a military presence across the globe. So which is more important to us? Are we really going to give up our bases in Europe if they don't pay? And if we are willing to give up our bases, are we willing to let another superpower take our place? I kind of doubt it.
     
  11. g8orbill

    g8orbill Old Gator VIP Member

    99,684
    12,979
    3,683
    Apr 3, 2007
    Clermont, Fl
    you do realize that we supply almost 70% if the NATO funding don't you
     
  12. GatorNorth

    GatorNorth Premium Member Premium Member

    12,194
    1,068
    688
    Apr 3, 2007
    Atlanta
    No, we don’t. We spend approximately 70% of the collective defense budgets of the combined NATO members because of our diversified worldwide interests, not “70% of the NATO funding”

    And 22% of the direct NATO budget, which is reasonably proportionate to our population and gdp.

    Trump’s claim that the U.S. pays the ‘lion’s share’ for NATO
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    65,904
    9,746
    2,743
    Apr 3, 2007
    Miami, OK
    According to the link GatorNorth provided the US pays 22%, Germany 15, France 11, and the UK 10%. So those 4 countries do provide over 50% of the direct funding for NATO. If you look at indirect funding, the spread gets larger it seems. It seems there are a lot of "free riders" Trump said.
     
  14. GatorNorth

    GatorNorth Premium Member Premium Member

    12,194
    1,068
    688
    Apr 3, 2007
    Atlanta
    Those countries make up about 57% of the NATO population and pay about 58% of NATOs direct funding.

    How is that giving others a free ride? To me it’s shockingly proportionate.

    Member states of NATO - Wikipedia
    (See military expenditure tab)
     
  15. gatorev12

    gatorev12 GC Hall of Fame

    11,510
    562
    648
    Jan 27, 2009
    NATO funding is impt, mind you; but the press hasn't done a good job explaining what it is or why it's relevant.

    All NATO members chip into common funding. This funding goes for admin/HQ costs in Brussels and for special commands that they spread out all over the alliance (no different from how the Marines have their top brass at the Pentagon, but special commands with specialized subject matter focus all over the country and world). *Some* of that pot goes toward purchasing common platforms that the entire alliance can use (like the NATO AWACS planes or the transport planes)..in addition to what every country purchase for themselves. Now: having operational planning and preparation already set up and in place IS very impt and a big reason why NATO is a relevant and formidable alliance.

    All of that is separate from actual defense spending, however. That's a measurement of how much a country spends on personnel, equipment, and training.

    It's a bit like noting that every country pays UN dues; and many countries also have foreign aid. Obviously, almost everyone spends more money on foreign aid than they do on the UN..even though the UN is a international organization that does a lot of general humanitarian work.

    So while Germany and Italy and France all pay up their organizational dues; they most definitely lag in national defense spending. Trump is right when America spends some 70% of total defense spending; and he's also right when America does some 80% of the heavy lifting on combat operations.

    There is room for nuance to this: Denmark spends about 1.2% on national defense; but they deploy their armed forces more than most--and don't hesitate to take on tough missions when they do. Greece meets the 2% threshold..but is consistently at the bottom in terms of deploying their military in support of NATO missions. On balance, Denmark is probably more "useful" an ally when viewed through that lens, even if they don't presently hit alliance spending requirements.

    But in saying that: theres far more countries that underfund their military AND don't deploy it...so while some nuance can be observed, in practice, it's pretty limited.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Gatormb

    Gatormb GC Hall of Fame

    8,992
    498
    558
    Apr 3, 2007
    Bradenton, Fl
    That's what I was going to say!:cool:

    Thanks.
     
  17. RayGator

    RayGator Moderator VIP Member

    58,341
    5,040
    2,118
    Apr 3, 2007
    Lakeland, Florida USA.
    And he’s right in doing so. There should be an agreement within NATO members on a percentage that is fair. And all the members should stick to it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. 108

    108 Premium Member

    16,058
    539
    628
    Apr 3, 2007
    NYC
    the MIC agrees
     
  19. grumpygator77

    grumpygator77 GC Legend

    803
    165
    248
    Nov 26, 2017
    just like it was before with the Pubs and Obama.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. grumpygator77

    grumpygator77 GC Legend

    803
    165
    248
    Nov 26, 2017
    because it plays better on FOX