• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Nato 2%

Will all NATO members stump up the cash?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 5.5%
  • No

    Votes: 137 94.5%

  • Total voters
    145

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
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?
 
#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?
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
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.
 
#5
Mentioned previously, what is and is not included in the 2%:
http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf
NATO defines defence expenditure as payments made by a national government specifically to meet the needs of its armed forces or those of Allies. A major component of defence expenditure is payments on Armed Forces financed within the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget. Armed Forces include Land, Maritime and Air forces as well as Joint formations such as Administration and Command, Special Operations Forces, Medical Service, Logistic Command etc. They might also include "Other Forces" like Ministry of Interior troops, border guards, national police forces, customs, gendarmerie, carabinierie, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure should be included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force. Also, expenditure on Other Forces financed through the budgets of ministries other than MoD should be included in defence expenditure.

Pension payments made directly by the government to retired military and civilian employees of military departments should be included regardless of whether these payments are made from the budget of the MoD or other ministries.

Expenditures for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations (paid by MoD or other ministries), the destruction of weapons, equipment and ammunition, and the costs associated with inspection and control of equipment destruction are included in defence expenditures.

Research and development (R&D) costs are to be included in defence expenditures. R&D costs should also include those for projects that do not successfully lead to production of equipment. Expenditure for the military component of mixed civilian-military activities is included, but only when this military component can be specifically accounted for or estimated.

etc etc
 
#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.
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
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.

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmdfence/494/494.pdf

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?
 
#10
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.

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmdfence/494/494.pdf

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?[/QUOTE]
Britain is now the second biggest arms dealer in the world
 
#14
Why on earth would you not count military pensions as part of military spending?
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.
 
#15
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.
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.
 
#16
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.
But that pension, as deferred pay, was a cost of employing that soldier. In the case of the unfunded schemes like the AFPS the nominal employers contribution comes out of the defence budget.
 
#17
Defence spending should be that which goes directly on defence.
Directly?
Money spent to buy equipment counts or not? I think we'd all agree it does. However some off that will be spent on its staff, some as pay & some as pension. So we can count part of BAE, Thales, MBDA etc pensions costs as defence expenditure but not our own peoples pensions.
 
#18
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.
The MOD, like any other employer, doesn't pay for that (other than via employers NI & a few other taxes) so why should they count that?
 
#20
@Andy71 - I don't disagree with you at all. It's a fact though that the current government has lumped in a load of stuff that never used to be lumped in Defence to get them across the 2 percent line. Trident, for one. Some elements of foreign aid as another. I was just making the point that they've been disingenuous.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts