Nato 2%

Will all NATO members stump up the cash?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 5.0%
  • No

    Votes: 170 95.0%

  • Total voters
    179
Everybody has a different perspective, when it comes to who is a threat and who is not. Which is why you should have a plan to kill everyone that you meet!
How wonderfully psychopathic of you, and an interesting insight into 'Murican thought processes.
 
Yes but they got rid of quite a few of the Ossies pretty quickly.
Did they? Dunno tbh but I’d have though like the FRG they would serve their time out.
No clue on how effective they would have been against the romping stomping red a$$.
A common theme seems to be that the last war they won was in 1870 and they were called Prussia at the time. They did actually nick some islands from memory and win some ‘Umboto Gorge’ type battles.
 
Last edited:
How wonderfully psychopathic of you, and an interesting insight into 'Murican thought processes.
It is a strange contradiction I have a pistol and a long gun in my vehicle, but I also carry a blow out kit just in case. You have to be prepared for anything out here. You never know when you are going to have some disgruntled twat from Nevada follow you to your child's daycare, or come across an accident and have to render aid to somebody that is a bit banged up.
 
I’m not sure it’s ‘quite a few’ tbh. Apart from the Generals most seemed to serve their term of national service out. They then weeded out the older officers and those suspected Stasi. Retraining obviously and bringing the barracks up to scratch. All costs money as did the whole reunification piece.

Anyway, Germany (imo) needs to set the standard for Europe and their commitments to 42(7) let alone A5. They’re the de facto lead for Europe. 1.5% by 2024 should be 1.5% by the end of the decade and 2% as agreed by 2024.
 
I’m not sure it’s ‘quite a few’ tbh. Apart from the Generals most seemed to serve their term of national service out. They then weeded out the older officers and those suspected Stasi. Retraining obviously and bringing the barracks up to scratch. All costs money as did the whole reunification piece.

Anyway, Germany (imo) needs to set the standard for Europe and their commitments to 42(7) let alone A5. They’re the de facto lead for Europe. 1.5% by 2024 should be 1.5% by the end of the decade and 2% as agreed by 2024.
Yes they should, which is why many other countries figure that if the Germans can skimp they can to. I just don't understand why they would commit to something that they had no intention to honor?
 
Anyway, Germany (imo) needs to set the standard for Europe and their commitments to 42(7) let alone A5. They’re the de facto lead for Europe. 1.5% by 2024 should be 1.5% by the end of the decade and 2% as agreed by 2024.
Ze Germans argument, which I've heard on a number of occasions and have (not much, but some) sympathy with, is that as good NATO members, every pfennig (ok euro) that Germany spends on defence is for the use of NATO, while nasty imperialist countries like the UK use their 'alleged 2%' to maintain post-Colonial vanity projects like the Falklands, which counts as part of the defence budget but contributes nothing to NATO. And they abhor nukes, despite their being NATO's only security guarantor.
 
Imx that was pretty much it in figures. The quality often left a lot to be desired but I suppose I’m biased.

Btw, after they absorbed the GDR’s Army, they were 360k strong.
Your statement is a bit misleading. First the figure of 360k is way over the top for the NVA, it would appear that your figure includes all the East German forces including the Grenztruppe who although they looked like infantry and even had infantry weapons were never the less not army, nor trained as such. Even before re-unification the then East German Defence Minister took the post on the condition that he was called the Minister for Defence and Disarmament. Therefore by the time re-unification actually took place large reductions in strength and destruction of weapons had already been actioned, in particular the Grenztruppe had been disbanded in July (?) 1990. Post re-unification a lot of officers in particular senior officers were not taken on in the Bundeswehr.
 
Ze Germans argument, which I've heard on a number of occasions and have (not much, but some) sympathy with, is that as good NATO members, every pfennig (ok euro) that Germany spends on defence is for the use of NATO, while nasty imperialist countries like the UK use their 'alleged 2%' to maintain post-Colonial vanity projects like the Falklands, which counts as part of the defence budget but contributes nothing to NATO. And they abhor nukes, despite their being NATO's only security guarantor.
I understand that, albeit they have some expeditionary warfare now they’re allowed outside Germany in Afghanistan and Mali etc. I would say it’s ‘sour grapes’ re former colonies, but then Belgian neutrality and Poland put paid to that ‘small sausage factory in Tanganyika’
 
Your statement is a bit misleading. First the figure of 360k is way over the top for the NVA, it would appear that your figure includes all the East German forces including the Grenztruppe who although they looked like infantry and even had infantry weapons were never the less not army, nor trained as such. Even before re-unification the then East German Defence Minister took the post on the condition that he was called the Minister for Defence and Disarmament. Therefore by the time re-unification actually took place large reductions in strength and destruction of weapons had already been actioned, in particular the Grenztruppe had been disbanded in July (?) 1990. Post re-unification a lot of officers in particular senior officers were not taken on in the Bundeswehr.
Jointly. After they absorbed the NVA: How Two Armies Became One | DW | 04.10.2005
Yet, while young people were exchanging experiences at the bottom, those at the top faced large challenges, most of all the reduction of the army from 600,000 to 370,000 soldiers. It was part of the peace dividend of reunification. That meant uprooting soldiers and their families around Germany in what were already turbulent times. By the mid-90's, the process was completed and many former NVA soldiers, due to their long-time military experience, found employment with industrial companies.
 
There's a debate on German TV right now over the 2% figure for defence spending, one of the guest speakers is a former US ambassador to Germany. I followed the debate for around 5 minutes before giving up. If Germany eventually fullfills the 2% figure it will only be done reluctantly. The interest just isn't there. There has even been very vocal opposition to increased spending from the Linke party and the Greens aren't too keen on it either. The other partys will talk about just anything except defence.
 
I don't know where these figures came from, but the peace time Bundeswehr was limited to 500,000 by law.
"reduction of the army from 600,000 to 370,000 soldiers."
 
I don't know where these figures came from, but the peace time Bundeswehr was limited to 500,000 by law.
"reduction of the army from 600,000 to 370,000 soldiers."
Dropped to 370,000 in order to comply with the ‘Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany’
http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/archive/files/germany-final-settlement_e0189c0884.pdf

According to this NATO document they never made their planned for 560,000: https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2005/peace-building/Germany-accession-NATO/EN/index.htm
 
I wonder how many of the 'sherpas' were up all night trying to craft the Summit Communique, while still keeping it flexible enough for any last minute grenades from POTUS?

E2A: And it looks like things are not going well! NATO HQ doesn't do 'unplanned meetings'.

'Leaders from countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) held an unplanned session on Thursday as US President Donald Trump ramped up his demand for member countries to increase their contribution in the alliance.

'Trump reportedly singled out Germany, Spain and Belgium "to reach two percent spending target" within a short deadline, two sources told Reuters news agency.

'The DPA news agency earlier reported that during the meeting, Trump threatened to pull the US out of NATO, but the report was denied by the two Reuters sources.

'Earlier on Thursday, the US president posted a series of messages on social media, hammering US allies during the second day of meetings with leaders of the military alliance.'


NATO holds unplanned meeting as Trump ramps up rhetoric
 
Last edited:
I apologize if this has already been mentioned but one thing to keep in mind with the US military budget and the goal of 4% spending is that not all of it is found in DOD budget. Nuclear weapons, for instance, are funded through the Department of Energy (delivery systems by DOD). For example, of the $1.2 trillion that the US plans to spend on nukes over the next 30 years, $890 billion is for the Defense Department and $352 billion for the Department of Energy.

The same argument can be made for other countries, since no-one budgets the same way, although I assume NATO has some sort of framework to make an apple to apple comparison.

The other factor would be all the money spent by host countries to support US troops. Money spent on support infrastructure is money the US doesn't have to spend.
 
I assume NATO has some sort of framework to make an apple to apple comparison.
You'd be correct which is why we now include the deterrent and pensions when calculating if we meet the 2%. Although what's a bit naughty is including them for comparison with past UK defence budgets which excluded them.
 
Trump's press conference at the Summit was a tour de force 'it's all about me'. Whether his apparent securing of a commitment by the other 28 HOSG to increase defence spending asap survives their national parliamentary processes in the coming days and weeks will show whether or not the rhetoric translates into anything concrete. Trump's spruiking for US defence contractors by name-checking Boeing, Lockheed and Grumman was something to behold.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Whether his apparent securing of a commitment by the other 28 HOSG to increase defence spending asap survives their national parliamentary processes in the coming days and weeks will show whether or not the rhetoric translates into anything concrete
Spoiler alert: it won't. Just like Brexit, the heads of the other NATO countries don't see a US withdrawal as a credible threat so they won't feel compelled to increase spending.

My view is that Trump should state that he won't feel bound by Article 5 for any country not spending 2% by 1 Jan 2019. That'd focus peoples minds.
 
My view is that Trump should state that he won't feel bound by Article 5 for any country not spending 2% by 1 Jan 2019. That'd focus peoples minds.
... in Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and possibly Slovakia and Hungary; but for the rest, not so much.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
.. in Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and possibly Slovakia and Hungary; but for the rest, not so much.
Arguably they're the ones that need the kick more than places like Germany. I'm no Trump fan but he's right about countries freeloading off the US security umbrella while contributing little or nothing to their own defence. Germany and France could probably afford not to spend even if the US withdrew because they don't currently face any credible threats requiring large scale deployments. Lithuania, on the other hand, would be in real danger if the US withdrew support.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top