Nato 2%

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Flight, Feb 16, 2017.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Yes

    8 vote(s)
  2. No

    137 vote(s)
  1. Flight

    Flight LE Book Reviewer

    Mattis threatens Nato with reduced US support over defence spending

    Question is what does this mean for us?

    Germany would have to increase it's budget by about $30Bn annually to meet the 2%. Italy and Spain by over $15Bn and France by about $5Bn. Thats a lot of kit.

    I guess it rests on Germany. They have the biggest bill to pay and have arguably been the chief beneficiary. Their budget is in surplus ( though not quite by $30Bn).

    Will this be the spur for the EU turning their backs on Nato in search of some Euroarmy clusterfuck? If they do stump up the cash what does it mean long term for our own forces composition?
    • Excellent Topic Excellent Topic x 9
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Germany has another massive bill to pay namely the €10-20Bn hole in the EU budget.

    The Baltics will be there in 6 months... Estonia already is.

    Poland is circa the figure but the Czechs and Slovaks are way behind... Western Europe is fubarred.

    But are the American numbers truthful?
  3. They'll all do what we do and add in anything even vaguely defence related to get their total up.

    Don't we count military pensions and foreign aid (because is saves us having to deploy forces to help or fight Fuzzy Wuzzies) as military spending for the 2% thing?
    • Like Like x 6
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. Flight

    Flight LE Book Reviewer

    Yes there's all sort of stuff included, though whether Germany et al already includes it would require some research. Chances are they already do.

    Belgium's defence budget is 30% pensions apparently.

    Also our wonderful masters had to include civil service pensions, payouts, UN contributions and other such fluff to get our contribution up to 2% last year, seems it has fallen below this year.
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Mentioned previously, what is and is not included in the 2%:
    • Informative Informative x 8
  6. Glad to know I'm doing my bit for the NATO contribution.
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  7. At the risk of making every thread about Brexit this has got potential to turn in to a Self fulfilling prophecy of sorts with regards to the European Army concerns people had pre election.

    If the septics become less likely to play big brother as a backlash to our and other European countries refusal to cough up then we're going to need to look at another option and a EUTO if you'll forgive the phrase will likely be the cheapest and easiest option for all concerned rather than any great or meaningful expansion of the EDA's remit.

    As Europe gets poorer which most would agree is the likely forecast I think budgets will only get tighter.

    Personally I think it's a crap idea. History shows yank isolationism ends up costing them more in the long run.
    • Like Like x 4
    • Old Old x 1
  8. Why on earth would you not count military pensions as part of military spending?
    • Like Like x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  9. Flight

    Flight LE Book Reviewer

    I think we started including pensions in 2010, the shifting of the goalposts more recently was other fudges.

    Defence committee reported on it a couple of years ago.

    I'll save you the bother of reading it, basically people like RUSI and IISS saying yes it is, MoD saying no it isn't.

    Still his imperial majesty seems to think we meet the 2%.

    If Germany did cave and splash the cash, presumably mainly on ground forces, I imagine it would have quite an effect on the needed composition of our own forces...

    Italy too, one of their Admiral chappies has had quite some success in getting more funds for the Navy. I can't see them investing too much in their Army if they upped spending. Unless they decided current MBT designs didn't have enough reverse gears.

    There's also a rather implicit though not entirely obvious element of self interest in the US stance. A look at the export market sees a great likelihood of sloshing heading over the Atlantic to American defence contractors. EU rules and whatnot though would probably see most of the boom contained within Europe. Shame we got rid of most of our defence industries what?
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Britain is now the second biggest arms dealer in the world
    • Informative Informative x 2
  11. For the same reason that I wouldn't include a ex-nurse's pension as part of spending on health care.

    Pensions go to former soldiers. By definition, if you get a pension you're not helping to defend the country anymore.
    • Like Like x 21
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  12. Sounds like Germany needs some bloke with a funny 'tache to start using Mefo bills....
    • Funny Funny x 2
  13. Don't forget the 150+ Retired Admiral pension@ app £120,000 per person each year :)
  14. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    Okay, then lump in any piece of treatment that an ex-service man or woman gets on the NHS. Bad knee? Knackered shoulder? Add it all in. Or how about adding in a portion of that which the Department of Education spends? It means that the Forces don't have to pay for recruits to be at least moderately numerate and literate.

    Defence spending should be that which goes directly on defence.

    The fact is that the government has been disingenuous. The irony of Corbyn calling them on it during PMQs the other week can't be lost on the members of this forum.
    • Like Like x 5
  15. I suppose an argument could be made about Ex-service personnel being moved onto the Reserve List, allowing for callout in extremis and therefore forming part of defence.