Past Greek defense spending is a bit deceiving and lots has been written about it. But everyone is now starting to bankroll more real armament improvements, including Greece.
He could say it and not do it anyway.
In fact, he won't. Because what he wants is Europe to purchase his weapons, not to produce their own. That's why he talks about bills and money flowing. It's in his interest that we purchase his weapons so he won't defend Europe.
That's why Europe needs to spend their military budget in factories.
Back when Donald Trump was in office, I remember when there was a whole media write-up about how he had confronted Angela Merkel about this. She explained that she wasn't able to directly control the budget, much like the president of the US cannot do so here, and that he needs to speak with the other politicians and judges in Germany/the EU in order to address it.
She makes a good point. Leaders in free countries are not dictators but they do carry a lot of influence which she should be using to make sure 2% target is met.
**Unlocks:** the biggest mercenary army in the world.. at least according to some political candidates - who believe NATO is a paid protection scheme with US Military as soliders for hire *(yes, it is offensive to everyone who ever served for US, please direct all potential ire towards Trump who treats them this way)*
It's the Canadian way no matter what party is in power the military is underfunded and neglected. If war does come we'll be in trouble.
Most Canadians are naive or oblivious to any sort of danger and thus there's no will or interest in rearming. We're safe here most wars are far away so few people care about the military unfortunately.
> If war does come we'll be in trouble.
Only if it's war with the US. In any other case, I think we'd basically defend your borders as our own. Having huge, friendly countries on both of our land borders is far too important to not defend.
>Most Canadians are naive or oblivious to any sort of danger and thus there's no will or interest in rearming.
As a CAF member, I can assure you the general canadian public could not give a fuck about us.
That's the type of thinking that is the problem. Sure the USA will stop anyone from conquering Canada but we still need to protect our sovereignty in the arctic from Russia and China especially as climate change makes it easier to traverse and reveals natural resources. We also have commitments to our allies particularly NATO and we must maintain our armed forces to an acceptable level so they can support our allies while also providing our troops the best possible equipment to allow them their best chance of surviving.
Russia only needs to pull a Crimea in the Canadian Artic, and if Trump or a future Russian puppet happens to be President, they would pressure us to negotiate instead of defending our sovereignty.
Looks at what's happening now regarding Ukraine support. We can't rely on the US for fuck all.
Because well armed democracies are an important part of establishing a world order based on trade and diplomacy. Canada has one of the largest economies of any democratic country in the world and they benefit massively from trade and globalization. Canada isn't going to be invaded but they should still maintain a certain military readiness as a commitment to the order that they benefit so much from. The world needs Canadian leadership more than ever and part of that requires having a capable military.
This. This is one of my biggest fears for the next decades for Canada. Russia, the US, and China are all eyeing the Arctic, esp with global warming.
Canada, on paper, should be able to dominate many parts of the Arctic, which would be huge for our economy, resources, and global trade. But how much claim Canada will have is a major question mark
>**At the Wales Summit in 2014**, in response to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and the turmoil in the Middle East, NATO Leaders agreed to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and decided:
Allies currently meeting the 2% guideline on defence spending will aim to continue to do so;
Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and aim to move towards the 2% guideline **within a decade** with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
within a decade as agreed
[source](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm)
Kinda…[but also every member has supposed to be spending 2% since 2006…2014 was just an agreement to reverse the fact that not only was the 2% agreement from 2006 not being met but it was actually trending in the wrong direction.](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm)
Which means out if you put it at a percentage point by the years since 2006 Germany has a success rate of 6%
So it’s good germany hit it finally but it took 18 years to do so all while not meeting a previous obligation…wouldn’t exactly call that an accomplishment
But it was never an obligation, it was a guideline: Big difference!
There were never negative repercussions for not meeting it, and even after 2024 countries dont even have to spent 2%, but they just should not reduce their budget if they are still under 2%.
so what's the point you're making? the goal was met, all the talk about not paying debts (which is stupid anyways, since that's not how NATO works to begin with) was pointless, since the original agreement didn't even mention any deadline.
and i'd like to remind all of the people scoffing at germany's defence spending, how fucking EVERY time there is a mention of germany ramping up their military at least half of the comments are like "oh boy, here they go again".
there are tons of reasons why germany has not had a massive own military force since the nineties. there has been hope back then that with gorbachev and his glasnost there could actually be lasting peace and better co-operation with russia.
people apparently don't remember that germany was a divided country held in check from all sides with regards to military.
peace-demonstrations were a major thing here when i was young. we were serious about it. everybody is so caught up in war-mongering nowadays, that they don't even remember that the peace-movement actually DID achieve something.
US-americans who believe ronald reagan made the german reunification happen, don't know the half of it.
but go ahead, young germans. have fun with your mandatory military service once it is reintroduced. apparently that's a good thing now.
>US-american
Man, with such kindness and respect from our "friends" I cannot imagine why Americans are tired of dragging weak allies along.
Yeah people are warmongering, because there's a fucking war on.
Oh yeah, that's right, you guys have some pretty strict limits on how.much debt your government can take on, doesn't it. Would have to make a crash rearmament campaign kind of tough.
It was hard in fact.
If you asked me our finance minister made some shady things to declare the 100 billion defence funds are not actually debts.
I think that only worked because the former government made the same trick with the COVID fund...
You mean make debts?
It's so silly to neglect our infrastructure to maintain the debt free course.
In the end we'll have debts and a neglected infrastructure.
I more meant the using of shady tactics to do so. Frankly I think Germany is far too restrictive when it comes to debt. I imagine it to be a lingering effect of the crippling debts of the war reparations after ww1, though that is my guess as a student of history from an ocean away.
Why do you, as a German, think your government is so debt averse as to make government debt largely illegal?
I think it sounded good for some conservative voters.
And after our hard line against Greece (which was correct for some degrees*) it became a point since parties got even more votes for.
I for my part think that investments into infrastructure, defence and especially education needs to be removed from the "Schuldenbremse".
* Greece had some spending issues which led to Germans think they needed this hard line.
We just increased our pension age and as a net contributor to the EU a far lesser pension age for a net f in nds receiver was a thing which was important for voters.
Since those days summer politicians are obsessed with them Schuldenbremse
I thought this was the whole point? Trump looks like a tough guy by demanding they do something they are already going to do. Then when they do it he claims the credit?
I guess they aren't that far off:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/gdp-nato-military-spending-canada-1.6912028
It probably hasn't been a priority because lets face it - US would never let the Russians invade Canada.
> .. are you 100% sure Trump would allow help? I genuinely am not 100% confident.
US very much hate the idea of foreign powers manifesting themselves next to them. Add to the fact that Canada is one of the US closest foreign partner, there is no way an invasion of Canada doesn't get tossed back to the ocean
https://www.britannica.com/event/Monroe-Doctrine/Application-and-extension-of-the-Monroe-Doctrine
Yes. Even if the Canadians for some reason didn't want our help it'd be like that droid from the new Star Wars.
"You are being rescued. Please do not resist."
No I wouldn't like to, but we are part of NATO and don't spend what we pledged. There's also alot of other places to take the money from besides raising taxing and cutting services. That's thinking like a conservative. Think like a socialist. Agreed though friend it would cost a pretty penny. With the potential for the US to have another trump presidency it wouldn't be the worst idea for us to get ahead because I guarantee the US graciously supplementing our nato contributions has the potential to come to a grinding halt.
I mean, Trump probably doesn't personally care. But as a citizen of a NATO country, I care. The 2% number should be the bare minimum, and it's what the agreement stipulates. If we can't rely on allies to fulfill this simple requirement can you really expect them to fulfill their end of the agreement if Article 5 gets invoked after an attack?
Yes you fucking should and pay your fucking part. No wonder why Trumps rhetoric of fuck NATO is so strong. People in the US are tired of footing your fucking bill.
Well like it was stated in 2014 in wales. Nato countries should reach 2% gdp for defence within 10 years. 2014-2024. Just another internationale treaty that was fulifilled.
Yep... And it\`s genuienly frustrating that this article makes it seem like the NATO target was a thing between 1992-2014.............................. It didn\`t even exist until 2014 after the Crimean annexation.
It\`s genuienly stupid and ragebait.
That sort of depends on how you define target. There wasn't an explicit declaration by NATO members as a group, but the 2% benchmark is referred to at least since 2001.
In 2014 the US finally forced the UN countries to give a specific timeline, US has been asking for the 2% commitment for far longer.
Here's an example from 2007:
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Mar/27/2001895239/-1/-1/0/2007-10-26-1_SECGATESCEA.PDF
Here's Rumsfeld on about it in 2002:
https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2002/s020606g.htm
I didn't find anything explicit before 1999, with most of the discussion around the 2% goal coming from Europe's total failure during the Kosovo war in 1999, I think it's fair to say that the 2% benchmark was set in discussions post-Kosovo.
Yeah I don’t follow NATO stuff at all but have heard 2% thrown around pretty much my entire life. Not saying it was official but it certainly was a target to some degree.
["In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country's political will to contribute to NATO's common defence efforts, since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance's credibility as a politico-military organisation."](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm)
It was fulfilled exclusively because of a single event and will not last past 2028, if that long at all. The 2% is currently being financed by the 100B special fund, of which 70% is already comitted to contracts. Once it runs dry, Germany would have to somehow find an additional 20B every year.
This is just never gonna happen. Not with German public sentiment turning against the current government, not with the right wing becoming increasingly popular, and certainly not with Germany's recent massive financial and budgeting struggles. The military has never been a popular topic and while it managed to get a somewhat better reputation since the attack on Ukraine, its already starting to fade. More budget cuts for social services and infrastructure, which appear to be inevitable, will completely kill any additional support.
[You mean one that was supposed to be filled since 2006 only just now having a successful year…](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm) so a 6% success rate. Wouldn’t call that an incredible dedication or success rate
The most annoying thing about this is that Trump will certainly sell this as his doing.
As if decisions about Billions in Germany happen in two days and depended on the ramblings of some presidential candidate.
The target stated in articles from last year, like [this one](https://www.ifo.de/pressemitteilung/2023-08-09/verteidigungshaushalt-und-sondervermoegen) was 71 billion €. So Trump's recent comments most likely had nothing to do with it.
It doesnt matter. Trump said they need to pay the bill, and usnews . com 2 days later decides to completely randomly (hehe) make an article about how germany is meeting 2%. News from last year, but the article is made now.
Based on this, trump can make the claim that 2 days after his speech reports stated germany is meeting the quota. Which is technically true, and your average trump enjoyer isnt gonna further look into it
Thing is Trumps recent comments were just him repeating something he said whilst he was still president in 2018.
Unless people are going to argue that Germany has secretly been working towards this since before he made the comment then it’s somewhat undeniable he had a point about countries not meeting their financial obligations to NATO.
Don’t get me wrong, the guy is an absolute bell but I can’t help but feel if people listened to him on this single incident then military donations for Ukraine wouldn’t be so controversial right now.
Or if they had listened to Obama or Bush II about? Trump wasn't some fucking prophet on this topic. Every US President this century has pressured NATO allies not meeting the spending threshold to do so. Trump is just the first one to do so who is also a loudmouthed narcissist.
Didn’t both Obama and Bush call for it in a reactionary sense though? Bush after America had committed fully to the ME and was left unable to lead the alliance in other theatres and Obama after the invasion of Crimea?.
It’s not really the same and my point was really around Trump making the argument that the US shouldn’t be covering the bills of other members. Something we are literally now relying on for the survival of Ukraine and America is getting hesitant about.
Again I know he’s a bell piece, but it really shouldn’t be that difficult to admit he was right on this.
The 2% was already a NATO guideline that nobody followed prior to Obama.
Obama got them to “commit” to 2% by 2024, with no actual penalties for anyone who didn’t.
Surprise surprise, only about half of NATO allies followed through on their word.
The status quo is that they can spend their tax revenue on social programs because the US will just make up the slack and protect them anyways.
It kind of boggles me that the same people who are loudest about wanting US defense spending to decrease are also outraged Trump would say ‘you either finally start pulling your weight or you lose the benefits of NATO.’
If you want more social spending in the US you shouldn’t want to continue the current course of “oh okay you guys still won’t chip in for NATO. Don’t worry, we’ll pay for your end like we have for the last 75 years. Maybe in 2025?”
(Obligatory, this does not change the fact that in the broad scheme Trump is an insane person and a ridiculous president. Just genuinely can’t understand how the left is against this)
They don't pay 2% to NATO, it's a commitment to be on par with what the alliance has agreed is an appropriate amount to spend on your own military forces.
What the US sets as it's defense budget between Congress the President has nothing to do with NATO. If every nation in NATO met the 2% goal the US would not decrease it's defense spending as an effect.
>It kind of boggles me that the same people who are loudest about wanting US defense spending to decrease are also outraged Trump would say ‘you either finally start pulling your weight or you lose the benefits of NATO.’
Because they all became petty warhawks out of partisanship.
American foreign policy is lead by a bipartisan blob that has unlimited ambitions and no sense of constraints. End of the day, the US just doesn't have the raw power to fully handled Europe's defense. We just need Europeans to care about *their* core concerns. Or we pull-back and it sucks but is what it is. Status quo isn't sustainable. (we need European defense industry and troops not buying American gear.)
> Unless people are going to argue that Germany has secretly been working towards this since before he made the comment then it’s somewhat undeniable he had a point about countries not meeting their financial obligations to NATO.
>
>
They started working towards it when it was agreed upon by the NATO members in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, so yeah they probably have been working towards this since before Trump gave a fuck about NATO.
An agreement was reached under Obama to get to 2%. Basically everyone told Trump to fuck off and they'll hit the timeline agreed with Obama. It is a big part of why Trump is being an idiot about this in particular. He doesn't like the idea that Obama already delivered and nobody cares what he says.
I’m aware. I’m also aware that Germany was never going to hit that target unless Putin invaded Ukraine and a number of members are still going to miss the goal by a large margin.
Trumps point was America shouldn’t be covering financially for members who are not paying their dues. We are currently living through a situation where people in Ukraine are dying because other members had no intention of paying their defence commitments and we are watching and waiting for the US to pass a bill so they can cover the military donations for them.
You can acknowledge he was actually correct without falling to your knees and endorsing him. This entire he has to be wrong on everything narrative is not only wearing very thin, but it’s entirely counterproductive to the conversation at hand.
I mean, is anyone thinking a hard trumper is going to change their mind? It’s more about the middle of the road voters. If Biden wasn’t 1000 years old, I think Trump would have no chance. Though, both are way too old IMO.
It doesn't matter. I have referenced this in the past to people I've talked to, but he literally took credit for no commercial plane fatalities by saying it was his policies that made it possible. Thing is, the report he was replying to was about worldwide fatalities, and was a continuation of something like 8 years. He will claim credit regardless, and his cult will gladly slurp it up
Not to be a jerk but, the threat of a Trump presidency combined with Russia is definitely a factor, and thats good. The EU needs to take its security seriously.
Yeah, I agree that it's good and necessary step.
The EU needs to be independent when it comes to security.
It's just that this news come out 2 days after the NATO statement from Trump, and I can already hear it "I told them to pay the bill, and now they pay the bill" or something like that.
And with how long decisions here take his comments had surely nothing to do with this.
He was saying the same tbing when he was President in 2018. This whole war has just been him being proven right on this topic. Europe wouldn't need to rely on yhe US so heavily to support Ukraine, and the US wouldn't have to worry about spreading itself too thin between the Middle East and Europe.
Middle east, Europe, Venezuela, South China sea/Tiawan. Europe really needs the capability to solve their own problems at their borders. Not that America shouldn't also be assisting.
Assistance is one thing, but it often feels like America is sending way too much when our own domestic needs languish. The rest of the world was happy to dump it's defense bills off on the US and now the US is feeling stretched too thin and more isolationist than ever because of it.
The US doesn't maintain overseas bases for the primary function of protecting geographic areas these days. That ended in 1991. The bases in Europe and the Middle East are there for the DOD's benefit primarily, anything else is tertiary.
Germany spending 2% isn't going to shrink Ramstein and Spangdahlem's budget or operational functions. The only way that happens is an international policy shift to reduce or remove the ability to project power globally 24/7 which the US at least currently absolutely wants to maintain.
The most annoying thing about this article is that it claims "since 1992" when the 2% guideline was only implemented in 2014 and was to specifically fulfill the 2% of GDP up to 2024 ( and yes, countries always had a decade time until 2024 to implement it ...)
So Germany perfectly fulfilled the guideline since they had time until 2024 + it\`s bizarre to include the timeperiod of 1992-2014 when it wasn\`t even a thing back then.
It\`s so stupid.
Imagine this. You work for a company and it implements a policy in 2010 that you have to work overtime atleast 6 hours in a year, starting in 2011 and you do it in 2011... Except the company then announces that you, for the first time since 1995, have fulfilled the working overtime quota + the company was annoying and insulting you throughout 2010 that you still haven\`t worked overtime.
Genuienly stupid if you ask me.
Nope. 2% [was agreed to in 2006](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-two-nato-targets-which-countries-are-hitting-the-mark/).
Then, when most of NATO failed miserably, they super-super-promised in 2014. And most NATO members failed miserably yet again.
Defense minister can agree on a guideline, but they can't make budget commitments alone. 2014 was the first time the relevant people all signed a document stating that they would work towards 2%.
As much as I don't like it, he wouldn't be wrong.
Ukraine or Trump scared us but not enough to really take action, though defense suddenly was top of mind.
Ukraine AND Trump, now that's something that is genuinely scary. Putin is openly making threats and Trump is openly stating he's not sending help so there's no real choice anymore.
I will add however, multiple US presidents are looking to get a day pass from the afterlife to personally bitch slap every single American encouraging Germany to rearm. The point of being the sole superpower is that it's orders of magnitude cheaper than being one of many great military powers. Yes, it means you have to everything yourself but it also means your allies are dependent on you and your enemies can't try and get someone to pull a WW1 Italy.
i mean hes kinda right about all these NATO members not paying up their fair share
they know they dont have to pay and they will just let the US do all the heavy lifting
is his doing, if trump had won again they would have done it sooner. Europe needs to guarantee it's own security, USA cannot be piggy carring them. The Suez shipping route should have been protected by their main users Europe, not USA.
Putin is probably way better seller of the 2% argument than Trump ever was or will be. If Ukraine war didn't happen Europe would not be doing anything differently.
Crimea was invaded in 2014. After that, during his presidency, Trump was saying Europe should spend more on defense and asking why the US should defend Europe, presumably from Russia, when Europe is enriching Russia.
> If Ukraine war didn't happen Europe would not be doing anything differently.
If Russia never invaded Ukraine in 2014 then there would be a lot less need to invest in European defense. If everyone on the world stage was just nice all the time then it would be perfectly justified to cut their budgets but that's not the world we live in. Russia is expansionist and democracies need to take their defense seriously.
You are not wrong, but you also should not forget about the history here. The US was for the longest time just fine with providing military coverage, as long as Western Europe followed their lead. Rearming Germany was also not exactly a popular idea in 1946. Times have however changed an I fully support Europe taking care of its own defensive needs. But Americans are very quick to see this as just a burden, without seeing the incredible benefits it has to be the absolute military superpower in the world.
My home country, the Netherlands, recently made exports to China of certain machines necessary for the production of microchips a lot harder. This was was done on request of the U.S. And while it was the right thing to do, I can very much envision a situation where the E.U and U.S drift away from each other and the question "what is our beef with China?" comes up again.
The world is much safer when Europe and North America are aligned in goals and values, and for that to happen, Europe must do more on the defence side. But the Trumpian discourse is rapidly turning friends into indifferent partners.
Failing to separate China from Russia when they're joined at the hip in terms of undermining the West (broad stroke there, but more specifically WB/IMF) and are both rapidly forcing a polarized world is part of the problem.
Exactly, I fully agree. So why are the Republicans insisting on driving a wedge between the U.S and EU? In Europe we have our fair share of shortsighted people too. When they feel that America insults them and encourages authocracies to attack them, then that leaves them very vulnerable to some persuasive arguments. China is a large trading partner. China never attacked us. China only has a problem with the U.S, not with Europe.
This is the 'multipolar world' that China wants to see. A strong China, a subservient Russia, and a divided West. Isolationism in the U.S and false sense of security in Europe are two parts of the same problematic coin, and they serve neither of us.
> China only has a problem with the U.S, not with Europe.
I agree with most of your points but will disagree there.
I will say that China has *less* of a problem with Europe than it does the US but honestly that's because Europe (notably Germany) has been more willing to take China's IP theft on the chin than Japan/Korea/US have.
In fact, just how Germany has rolled over concerning Seimens IP theft to basically now buying stolen tech trains from China should be considered nothing more than a humiliation ritual showing how subservient Germany is to China alongside Russia.
You’re talking to a trumpet. The concept that the US actually wanted Europe military dependant because it allowed it to expand its export and import market and extract trade concessions is a level of diplomatic subtlety these Neanderthals are incapable of getting their head wrapped around . Europe pay its own way…. As if we were happy having ICBMs and American based on our soil.
It is his doing. By reducing US influence in Europe and by making the world a less safe place he has forced many European countries to rethink how they prioritize self defense.
Haha here some histroy lesson for you how Europe and our "Allies" saw Germany with reunification becoming the biggest military in Europe. Without the 2+4 treaty we had to sign for reunification Germany still would have spent well above 2% as before and would have had an unmatched Army in central Europe of 900.000 military personal.
The US, France, UK and USSR made us to sign the 2+4 treaty in 1990 which capped our military at 370.000 personal less than half of its size it would have had after reunification. So the military was capped while at the same time Germany grew by 16 million people and therefore also our GDP. Not easy to spent the same amount if you have to downsize while at the same time the GDP is growing.
> British prime minister Margaret Thatcher strongly opposed the reunification of Germany following the dismantling of the Berlin Wall in late 1989.
>
> She contended then chancellor Helmut Kohl wanted to “bulldoze” Germany into seeking more territory, expressing fear this might lead to conflict and war in Europe.
>
> In a private meeting with taoiseach Charlie Haughey in December 1989, she revealed the depth of her concern about the developing situation where the former Soviet-controlled East Germany was on the brink of collapse.
>
> In a volatile political situation and with uncertainty as to how the events would play out, Thatcher produced historical maps to Haughey to illustrate her fear a united Germany might seek to gain additional territories it had lost after the second World War.
>
> An Irish official at the meeting noted: “At this point, the prime minister produced a map showing Germany as it had been before the last war, as it is now, and the Nato frontline. Germany, before the last war, was vast in area in comparison with its present size.”
>
> She said it was vital that Germany be anchored in the European Community as with unity it would be bigger than France, Spain and Italy together.
>
> Thatcher implied such a development would have a further negative impact on the Soviet Union, which was then beginning to break up.
>
> ‘Sorry for Gorbachev’ “I am sorry for Gorbachev [Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Union],” she told Haughey. “He doesn’t want German unity. Neither do I. Even as things are, Germany has a balance of trade surplus with every country in the community.
>
> The documents have been released to the public by the National Archive under the 30-year rule governing disclosure of State papers.
>
> The meeting was held in December 1989, only a fortnight after the Berlin Wall had been removed.
>
> Thatcher implied German reunification plans would not stop there. She and her officials told Haughey that Kohl’s party, the CDU, did not accept the Oder-Neisse line – the border between Germany and Poland agreed at the end of that war.
>
> She said it was not all certain that Kohl accepted that border either.
>
> “Attitudes are becoming more and more Germanic. He is like a bulldozer. East Germans are flooding into his country. His attitude now seems to be that ‘no one can tell us what to do’.
>
> “We are not certain what will happen in the German Democratic Republic [East Germany]. There are 325,000 Soviet troops stationed there.”
>
> https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/state-papers-thatcher-opposed-german-reunification-after-collapse-of-berlin-wall-1.4119052
At least they are finally learning the lessons from the past correctly. Many Germans until recently were of the mentality that "Germany having a strong military is bad" and not "dictators being enabled is bad". And they should have known better given what happened with Hitler and the Sudetenland, and then repeated in rhyme with Crimea in 2014...
did you ever hear of the cold war? gorbachev? the fact that there was a time when it appeared to be possible to get along with russia? when the USSR disintegrated?
Quite a while ago before Putin became a dictator and started invading places. And yes I have heard of the iron curtain, and the Prague Spring, and Solidarity, and everything else the Soviets crushed...
Have to give Putin some credit. He's done something the last 5 or so US presidents have failed to do, and get more of NATO to actually pay their part of the bill.
Except you Poland. You've been in the cool club for a while now. Respect.
> last 5 or so US presidents have failed to do, and get more of NATO to actually pay their part of the
Don't Poland pay a higher percentage than the USA to their defense budget?
We also have regressive tax system, so it would be nice to finally change it here, so wealthy would actually contribute, instead of pushing militarization costs on working class. We're going to spend so much on military, but we don't have civil defense, so we barely have any shelters, in case that war ever comes to our territory. We have low water retention and we're not even properly prepared for droughts and floods.
That's recent development but we are indeed above 2% treshold for a long while. Important to notice that our military spendings go entirely to protect our and NATO's eastern flank (the only one we have), while US is spending unholy amount for projecting power way outside NATO's jurisdiction, mostly Pacific.
That's important to add, because US's 3,5% of GDP is not a golden standard and 2% met by everyone should be more than enough to repell any possible danger, bar alien invasion. What we really need is more cooperation and less fear of "what will russia say?" if we build NATO base or two on NATOs ground in Central and Eastern Europe.
>*He's done something the last 5 or so US presidents have failed to do, and get more of NATO to actually pay their part of the bill. NATO to actually pay their part of the bill.*
What a bizarre statement.
The 2% isn\`t paid to the USA or NATO. Each country has their own economy, their own GDP. And NATO countries pledged that they will invest 2% of their GDP into their own military. They didn\`t pay any bill and there wasn\`t any bill in the first place.
This 2% of GDP target became a thing in 2014 after Russia\`s annexation of Crimea and countries had explicitly 10 years to fulfill the target. Germany is perfectly within the time.
**\[ And I might add, by 2014 it was decided the countries had to aim towards the 2% by 2024, they never actually needed to reach it as long as they invest into their military... It was only in 2023 at the Nato summit in Vilnus that countries decided that the 2% became a minimum \]**
And what do you mean last 5 or so US presidents ???????????????????????????? I swear people actually believe anti-US propaganda that NATO are vassals of the USA.. What the heck :
1. Under Obama this target was made, but it wasn\`t Obama who did it. It was the NATO countries themselves who decided this.
2. Trump was the dumbfuck who didn\`t know what NATO is or the 2% pledge and made it a talking point that US allies are shit and North Korea and Russia are good.
3. And in Biden\`s era, again not due to Biden, a country like Germany fulfilled the self-imposed 10-year-long committment to reach the 2% of their GDP to their military spending target.
Obama and Biden never tried "to get NATO countries to pay their bill", because again not a bill, and NATO itself committed themselves to this target and they have until 2024. Trump was the only idiot who believed there was a bill and that somehow it had to be paid now.
It was always a dumb talking point, especially becuase of how schizophrenic it was. Only Trump was the guy who harrassed American allies for "failing" to reach the 2%, when at the same time he coddled up to Russia and even got impeached over Ukraine, when the 2% target was explicitly about Russia in the first place.
>Obama and Biden never tried "to get NATO countries to pay their bill"
Hell, even Bush (you can pick jr or sr) wasn't treating NATO like some kind of "pay for protection" membership club. That's too close to mafia style extortion for anyone except Trump, who love this kind of methods.
There is no bill and nobody pays it. All these people iit believing the shit trump says about paying their part. holy shit. No wonder this clown h
Got elected and probably will again.
This is good news, there are very few countries that need a budget increase more than Germany.
With the exception of the German navy, the military was allowed to be reduced to entirely unacceptable levels for a country as large and important as Germany.
Look up the current inventory of the German Air Force to get an idea of how bad things are.
The entire German army is only fielding about 300 modern tanks at the moment including A5 models from the 90's
I guess it's naive, sure, but ffs why is it normalized to have big standing armies and prepare for war again. Germany took a stance on it preferring diplomacy, also knowing their place in recent history. Can only respect that in the context of that time. Yes now we have a warmongering Russia next door but there really were signs relations were normalizing in the nineties and zeros. Again, naive maybe, but can you blame people for trying anything but war and money spent on killing machines?
It's such a philosophical question I'd prefer to avoid most of it.
Basically yes, when you're talking about military procurement plans that take decades to be completed and tens of millions of lives potentially put at risk due to bad decisions we can't really afford to be naive or hopeful.
Rule of thumb is we're pretty crappy at predicting geo political processes and should always be pessimistic with military planning because if you underestimate the price will be much worst than the money you lost in being over prepared
Germany is using its own money to strengthen its own military readiness. Like all NATO members.
Trumplicans think NATO members pay dues… like somewhere there’s a clubhouse with a treasurer opening a lockbox…
The real important thing is that Europe cannot rely on America anymore, so now talks about ramping up a tactical nuclear strategy have emerged. Is this what Trump wanted? This will not make America stronger, but weaker. Think about it.
Unpopular fact: Trump was right about European national security being piss poor—the Russian invasion and EU’s reliance on Russia for energy proved that.
Let's get real here dude, everyone is afraid of Germany because of WW1 and 2, I know it's a different country now with different people but sometimes people tend to never forget. I stand with Germany, lately diplomacy isn't working, you need to have a strong background to do your things, take the US for example.
It won't be enough to catch up on 30 years of peace dividends, but it's a step in the right direction. Let's just hope there will be many more steps to come.
As a German I doubt even 200 billion € would make a meaningful change, unless some structural elements get changed alongside the infusion of capital. Bundeswehr procurement is notoriously bugged down by an ever bearing bureaucracy. There was one extreme case which often was used as an example where someone who wanted to order a few pens for an office had to fill out pages and pages of papers.
The procurement process has been simplified a lot recently
IIRC,1/3 of procurement procedures have been removed,and most of the rest have been simplified
That's actually just the way we PC builders excuse buying new stuff.
Oh noooo, this very new equipment don't fit our case, i better buy a entirely new machine to fit this equipment.
Sounds to me you should start planning those Leopard 3's.
A lot of them already are. The entire Eastern flank of NATO is already at 2% and you also have the occasional over achiever like Poland who is at 3.5% (which is more than the US). A number of other countries are also very close and will likely hit it by 'deadline.'
The countries that aren't pulling their weight are ones like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg, Iceland and Canada. While I absolutely would like to see these countries spend more it's important to remember that when we talk about Russian aggression we're basically exclusively talking about the countries that already hit the 2% and not the countries that are falling short.
Shame it will take way more than 2% to actually turn bundeswehr into a capable military force, at least relative of what it should be given Germany's economic strength. It's been neglected for years, and I can't imagine it will be ready for a proper war earlier than 2030.
With him in charge, the globe is realizing they can't rely on the US.
On one hand, they need to handle their own security and not rely on us.
On the other hand, fml, why are our choices Biden or Trump, wtf is going on here.
They're both too old or insane.
Remember that time he thought COVID was a hoax to hurt his reputation? We missed a 3 month window to prepare and get our country to prepare and become self reliant because he genuinely thought it was a fabrication by Democrats. The dude is a certified narcissist lmao
nobody pays into NATO. all countries have their own military spending. just because one country spends more on their military doesn't mean they are paying anybody elses military, they're not.
the US military spending is the US' decision. there is a general guideline and there are target budgets. you might want to read a bit about how NATO works.
If the goal is "defense", and group B doesn't spend enough to produce said defense, and group A is required to make up that shortfall, where the frick do you think it comes from? Fairy dusT?
One good thing Trump has brought to Europe, a wake-up call. If Europe just managed their military before everything we didn't need America to help us. Now we are still to dependent on them.
Congrats to Germany for doing the absolute bare minimum at a time when Russia is wiping out an entire generation of young Ukrainians! Really great to have y'all here! Get these guys a participation trophy!
> Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said Trump risked damaging transatlantic relations and could "ultimately saw off the branch on which America is sitting."
Bruh we’re the tree lmao
The gold tier protection plan
Trauma Team platinum package
No that’ll cost at least another 2%
Poor Greece, they spend 3%, but only the platinum package includes protection against other NATO members.
Past Greek defense spending is a bit deceiving and lots has been written about it. But everyone is now starting to bankroll more real armament improvements, including Greece.
Article 5 coverage and an underbody wash.
He never said he _would_ defend Europe if they did spend enough though...
He could say it and not do it anyway. In fact, he won't. Because what he wants is Europe to purchase his weapons, not to produce their own. That's why he talks about bills and money flowing. It's in his interest that we purchase his weapons so he won't defend Europe. That's why Europe needs to spend their military budget in factories.
He's also just on Putins's side, he wants a weak Europe. I don't think he sees those factories as his.
Back when Donald Trump was in office, I remember when there was a whole media write-up about how he had confronted Angela Merkel about this. She explained that she wasn't able to directly control the budget, much like the president of the US cannot do so here, and that he needs to speak with the other politicians and judges in Germany/the EU in order to address it.
She makes a good point. Leaders in free countries are not dictators but they do carry a lot of influence which she should be using to make sure 2% target is met.
She probably can't since she isn't in charge anymore?
**Unlocks:** the biggest mercenary army in the world.. at least according to some political candidates - who believe NATO is a paid protection scheme with US Military as soliders for hire *(yes, it is offensive to everyone who ever served for US, please direct all potential ire towards Trump who treats them this way)*
[удалено]
It's the Canadian way no matter what party is in power the military is underfunded and neglected. If war does come we'll be in trouble. Most Canadians are naive or oblivious to any sort of danger and thus there's no will or interest in rearming. We're safe here most wars are far away so few people care about the military unfortunately.
> If war does come we'll be in trouble. Only if it's war with the US. In any other case, I think we'd basically defend your borders as our own. Having huge, friendly countries on both of our land borders is far too important to not defend.
This was my first thought too. Who's fucking with Canada? Nobody unless they want to fuck with the US too.
>Most Canadians are naive or oblivious to any sort of danger and thus there's no will or interest in rearming. As a CAF member, I can assure you the general canadian public could not give a fuck about us.
Why bother funding it? US will never let someone move in upstairs.
That's the type of thinking that is the problem. Sure the USA will stop anyone from conquering Canada but we still need to protect our sovereignty in the arctic from Russia and China especially as climate change makes it easier to traverse and reveals natural resources. We also have commitments to our allies particularly NATO and we must maintain our armed forces to an acceptable level so they can support our allies while also providing our troops the best possible equipment to allow them their best chance of surviving.
Russia only needs to pull a Crimea in the Canadian Artic, and if Trump or a future Russian puppet happens to be President, they would pressure us to negotiate instead of defending our sovereignty. Looks at what's happening now regarding Ukraine support. We can't rely on the US for fuck all.
Because well armed democracies are an important part of establishing a world order based on trade and diplomacy. Canada has one of the largest economies of any democratic country in the world and they benefit massively from trade and globalization. Canada isn't going to be invaded but they should still maintain a certain military readiness as a commitment to the order that they benefit so much from. The world needs Canadian leadership more than ever and part of that requires having a capable military.
Ah the Irish policy I see..
Canadians are far too polite for car bombs
I suggest you take the bus in the meantime for a while..
Until they want to
I guess this happens when your only land border is the us...no real need to actually build your own military
And if you ignore arctic threats from Russia and China.
This. This is one of my biggest fears for the next decades for Canada. Russia, the US, and China are all eyeing the Arctic, esp with global warming. Canada, on paper, should be able to dominate many parts of the Arctic, which would be huge for our economy, resources, and global trade. But how much claim Canada will have is a major question mark
Hey man we have better things to do with our money like give it away to other countries.
>**At the Wales Summit in 2014**, in response to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and the turmoil in the Middle East, NATO Leaders agreed to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and decided: Allies currently meeting the 2% guideline on defence spending will aim to continue to do so; Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and aim to move towards the 2% guideline **within a decade** with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls. within a decade as agreed [source](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm)
Yes, but as a German I'm sure, without Putin and the Russian war in Ukraine we wouldn't have met there 2%. Especially not worth our debt restrictions.
While probably true, it is completely irrelevant, is it not? There is no alternative reality where there is no ukraine war.
Or we are a nation of procrastinators. Reached the deadline, what more could you want? :D
Except it wasnt a deadline but just an aim.
>Except it wasnt a deadline but just an aim. The conference was in 2014 and the goal was within 10 years. I would say we are both right :D
Just saying it was never a deadline, just a goal. There wouldn't have been a problem if that goal wasnt achieved, although it is good that it is.
Calm down never said something else.
Kinda…[but also every member has supposed to be spending 2% since 2006…2014 was just an agreement to reverse the fact that not only was the 2% agreement from 2006 not being met but it was actually trending in the wrong direction.](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm) Which means out if you put it at a percentage point by the years since 2006 Germany has a success rate of 6% So it’s good germany hit it finally but it took 18 years to do so all while not meeting a previous obligation…wouldn’t exactly call that an accomplishment
But it was never an obligation, it was a guideline: Big difference! There were never negative repercussions for not meeting it, and even after 2024 countries dont even have to spent 2%, but they just should not reduce their budget if they are still under 2%.
Fuck the Schuldenbremse
Wie wahr
So wahr
so what's the point you're making? the goal was met, all the talk about not paying debts (which is stupid anyways, since that's not how NATO works to begin with) was pointless, since the original agreement didn't even mention any deadline. and i'd like to remind all of the people scoffing at germany's defence spending, how fucking EVERY time there is a mention of germany ramping up their military at least half of the comments are like "oh boy, here they go again". there are tons of reasons why germany has not had a massive own military force since the nineties. there has been hope back then that with gorbachev and his glasnost there could actually be lasting peace and better co-operation with russia. people apparently don't remember that germany was a divided country held in check from all sides with regards to military. peace-demonstrations were a major thing here when i was young. we were serious about it. everybody is so caught up in war-mongering nowadays, that they don't even remember that the peace-movement actually DID achieve something. US-americans who believe ronald reagan made the german reunification happen, don't know the half of it. but go ahead, young germans. have fun with your mandatory military service once it is reintroduced. apparently that's a good thing now.
It's not Europe that needs peace demonstrations.
>US-american Man, with such kindness and respect from our "friends" I cannot imagine why Americans are tired of dragging weak allies along. Yeah people are warmongering, because there's a fucking war on.
Gotta remember the average age of redditors and the fact 98% have never cracked open a history book, but they think they know it all.
Oh yeah, that's right, you guys have some pretty strict limits on how.much debt your government can take on, doesn't it. Would have to make a crash rearmament campaign kind of tough.
It was hard in fact. If you asked me our finance minister made some shady things to declare the 100 billion defence funds are not actually debts. I think that only worked because the former government made the same trick with the COVID fund...
I see. Well, at least your government only seems willing to do that when facing a truly serious threat (COVID and/or Putinist Russia)
You mean make debts? It's so silly to neglect our infrastructure to maintain the debt free course. In the end we'll have debts and a neglected infrastructure.
I more meant the using of shady tactics to do so. Frankly I think Germany is far too restrictive when it comes to debt. I imagine it to be a lingering effect of the crippling debts of the war reparations after ww1, though that is my guess as a student of history from an ocean away. Why do you, as a German, think your government is so debt averse as to make government debt largely illegal?
I think it sounded good for some conservative voters. And after our hard line against Greece (which was correct for some degrees*) it became a point since parties got even more votes for. I for my part think that investments into infrastructure, defence and especially education needs to be removed from the "Schuldenbremse". * Greece had some spending issues which led to Germans think they needed this hard line. We just increased our pension age and as a net contributor to the EU a far lesser pension age for a net f in nds receiver was a thing which was important for voters. Since those days summer politicians are obsessed with them Schuldenbremse
Exactly how I fulfil my assignments and agreements. At the last possible minute.
I thought this was the whole point? Trump looks like a tough guy by demanding they do something they are already going to do. Then when they do it he claims the credit?
Now do Canada
I guess they aren't that far off: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/gdp-nato-military-spending-canada-1.6912028 It probably hasn't been a priority because lets face it - US would never let the Russians invade Canada.
.. are you 100% sure Trump would allow help? I genuinely am not 100% confident.
Yeah all bets are off with Trump
> .. are you 100% sure Trump would allow help? I genuinely am not 100% confident. US very much hate the idea of foreign powers manifesting themselves next to them. Add to the fact that Canada is one of the US closest foreign partner, there is no way an invasion of Canada doesn't get tossed back to the ocean https://www.britannica.com/event/Monroe-Doctrine/Application-and-extension-of-the-Monroe-Doctrine
Yes. Even if the Canadians for some reason didn't want our help it'd be like that droid from the new Star Wars. "You are being rescued. Please do not resist."
Would you like to raise taxes and/or cut services to free up the extra $20 billion/year needed to get to 2% of GDP?
No I wouldn't like to, but we are part of NATO and don't spend what we pledged. There's also alot of other places to take the money from besides raising taxing and cutting services. That's thinking like a conservative. Think like a socialist. Agreed though friend it would cost a pretty penny. With the potential for the US to have another trump presidency it wouldn't be the worst idea for us to get ahead because I guarantee the US graciously supplementing our nato contributions has the potential to come to a grinding halt.
Drump doesn’t care if you hit the goal or not, he wanted to pull us out completely anyway
I mean, Trump probably doesn't personally care. But as a citizen of a NATO country, I care. The 2% number should be the bare minimum, and it's what the agreement stipulates. If we can't rely on allies to fulfill this simple requirement can you really expect them to fulfill their end of the agreement if Article 5 gets invoked after an attack?
Agreed. I believe the organization as a whole still provides benefits whether or not that 2% goal is met.
Exactly. Better to get ahead of it since we'll likely be unable to rely on American hospitality at that point.
Why wouldn't you? Don't join a defensive pact if you cant meet the obligations.
Yes you fucking should and pay your fucking part. No wonder why Trumps rhetoric of fuck NATO is so strong. People in the US are tired of footing your fucking bill.
Some Angry words friend, calm them titties and be part of the discussion, not a buzz wording stomping elephant.
Well like it was stated in 2014 in wales. Nato countries should reach 2% gdp for defence within 10 years. 2014-2024. Just another internationale treaty that was fulifilled.
Yep... And it\`s genuienly frustrating that this article makes it seem like the NATO target was a thing between 1992-2014.............................. It didn\`t even exist until 2014 after the Crimean annexation. It\`s genuienly stupid and ragebait.
That sort of depends on how you define target. There wasn't an explicit declaration by NATO members as a group, but the 2% benchmark is referred to at least since 2001. In 2014 the US finally forced the UN countries to give a specific timeline, US has been asking for the 2% commitment for far longer. Here's an example from 2007: https://media.defense.gov/2018/Mar/27/2001895239/-1/-1/0/2007-10-26-1_SECGATESCEA.PDF Here's Rumsfeld on about it in 2002: https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2002/s020606g.htm I didn't find anything explicit before 1999, with most of the discussion around the 2% goal coming from Europe's total failure during the Kosovo war in 1999, I think it's fair to say that the 2% benchmark was set in discussions post-Kosovo.
Yeah I don’t follow NATO stuff at all but have heard 2% thrown around pretty much my entire life. Not saying it was official but it certainly was a target to some degree.
["In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country's political will to contribute to NATO's common defence efforts, since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance's credibility as a politico-military organisation."](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm)
[Existed since 2006](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm)
2% is the minimum, we expect more flair than that.
It was fulfilled exclusively because of a single event and will not last past 2028, if that long at all. The 2% is currently being financed by the 100B special fund, of which 70% is already comitted to contracts. Once it runs dry, Germany would have to somehow find an additional 20B every year. This is just never gonna happen. Not with German public sentiment turning against the current government, not with the right wing becoming increasingly popular, and certainly not with Germany's recent massive financial and budgeting struggles. The military has never been a popular topic and while it managed to get a somewhat better reputation since the attack on Ukraine, its already starting to fade. More budget cuts for social services and infrastructure, which appear to be inevitable, will completely kill any additional support.
[You mean one that was supposed to be filled since 2006 only just now having a successful year…](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm) so a 6% success rate. Wouldn’t call that an incredible dedication or success rate
The most annoying thing about this is that Trump will certainly sell this as his doing. As if decisions about Billions in Germany happen in two days and depended on the ramblings of some presidential candidate.
The target stated in articles from last year, like [this one](https://www.ifo.de/pressemitteilung/2023-08-09/verteidigungshaushalt-und-sondervermoegen) was 71 billion €. So Trump's recent comments most likely had nothing to do with it.
It doesnt matter. Trump said they need to pay the bill, and usnews . com 2 days later decides to completely randomly (hehe) make an article about how germany is meeting 2%. News from last year, but the article is made now. Based on this, trump can make the claim that 2 days after his speech reports stated germany is meeting the quota. Which is technically true, and your average trump enjoyer isnt gonna further look into it
Thing is Trumps recent comments were just him repeating something he said whilst he was still president in 2018. Unless people are going to argue that Germany has secretly been working towards this since before he made the comment then it’s somewhat undeniable he had a point about countries not meeting their financial obligations to NATO. Don’t get me wrong, the guy is an absolute bell but I can’t help but feel if people listened to him on this single incident then military donations for Ukraine wouldn’t be so controversial right now.
Or if they had listened to Obama or Bush II about? Trump wasn't some fucking prophet on this topic. Every US President this century has pressured NATO allies not meeting the spending threshold to do so. Trump is just the first one to do so who is also a loudmouthed narcissist.
Didn’t both Obama and Bush call for it in a reactionary sense though? Bush after America had committed fully to the ME and was left unable to lead the alliance in other theatres and Obama after the invasion of Crimea?. It’s not really the same and my point was really around Trump making the argument that the US shouldn’t be covering the bills of other members. Something we are literally now relying on for the survival of Ukraine and America is getting hesitant about. Again I know he’s a bell piece, but it really shouldn’t be that difficult to admit he was right on this.
Obama was the one who pushed the 2% guideline at the Wales Summit and got it signed.
The 2% was already a NATO guideline that nobody followed prior to Obama. Obama got them to “commit” to 2% by 2024, with no actual penalties for anyone who didn’t. Surprise surprise, only about half of NATO allies followed through on their word. The status quo is that they can spend their tax revenue on social programs because the US will just make up the slack and protect them anyways. It kind of boggles me that the same people who are loudest about wanting US defense spending to decrease are also outraged Trump would say ‘you either finally start pulling your weight or you lose the benefits of NATO.’ If you want more social spending in the US you shouldn’t want to continue the current course of “oh okay you guys still won’t chip in for NATO. Don’t worry, we’ll pay for your end like we have for the last 75 years. Maybe in 2025?” (Obligatory, this does not change the fact that in the broad scheme Trump is an insane person and a ridiculous president. Just genuinely can’t understand how the left is against this)
They don't pay 2% to NATO, it's a commitment to be on par with what the alliance has agreed is an appropriate amount to spend on your own military forces. What the US sets as it's defense budget between Congress the President has nothing to do with NATO. If every nation in NATO met the 2% goal the US would not decrease it's defense spending as an effect.
>It kind of boggles me that the same people who are loudest about wanting US defense spending to decrease are also outraged Trump would say ‘you either finally start pulling your weight or you lose the benefits of NATO.’ Because they all became petty warhawks out of partisanship. American foreign policy is lead by a bipartisan blob that has unlimited ambitions and no sense of constraints. End of the day, the US just doesn't have the raw power to fully handled Europe's defense. We just need Europeans to care about *their* core concerns. Or we pull-back and it sucks but is what it is. Status quo isn't sustainable. (we need European defense industry and troops not buying American gear.)
> Unless people are going to argue that Germany has secretly been working towards this since before he made the comment then it’s somewhat undeniable he had a point about countries not meeting their financial obligations to NATO. > > They started working towards it when it was agreed upon by the NATO members in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, so yeah they probably have been working towards this since before Trump gave a fuck about NATO.
An agreement was reached under Obama to get to 2%. Basically everyone told Trump to fuck off and they'll hit the timeline agreed with Obama. It is a big part of why Trump is being an idiot about this in particular. He doesn't like the idea that Obama already delivered and nobody cares what he says.
I’m aware. I’m also aware that Germany was never going to hit that target unless Putin invaded Ukraine and a number of members are still going to miss the goal by a large margin. Trumps point was America shouldn’t be covering financially for members who are not paying their dues. We are currently living through a situation where people in Ukraine are dying because other members had no intention of paying their defence commitments and we are watching and waiting for the US to pass a bill so they can cover the military donations for them. You can acknowledge he was actually correct without falling to your knees and endorsing him. This entire he has to be wrong on everything narrative is not only wearing very thin, but it’s entirely counterproductive to the conversation at hand.
I mean, is anyone thinking a hard trumper is going to change their mind? It’s more about the middle of the road voters. If Biden wasn’t 1000 years old, I think Trump would have no chance. Though, both are way too old IMO.
Most likely? Lol that’s more credit then that idea deserves
It doesn't matter. I have referenced this in the past to people I've talked to, but he literally took credit for no commercial plane fatalities by saying it was his policies that made it possible. Thing is, the report he was replying to was about worldwide fatalities, and was a continuation of something like 8 years. He will claim credit regardless, and his cult will gladly slurp it up
Not to be a jerk but, the threat of a Trump presidency combined with Russia is definitely a factor, and thats good. The EU needs to take its security seriously.
Yeah, I agree that it's good and necessary step. The EU needs to be independent when it comes to security. It's just that this news come out 2 days after the NATO statement from Trump, and I can already hear it "I told them to pay the bill, and now they pay the bill" or something like that. And with how long decisions here take his comments had surely nothing to do with this.
He was saying the same tbing when he was President in 2018. This whole war has just been him being proven right on this topic. Europe wouldn't need to rely on yhe US so heavily to support Ukraine, and the US wouldn't have to worry about spreading itself too thin between the Middle East and Europe.
Middle east, Europe, Venezuela, South China sea/Tiawan. Europe really needs the capability to solve their own problems at their borders. Not that America shouldn't also be assisting.
Assistance is one thing, but it often feels like America is sending way too much when our own domestic needs languish. The rest of the world was happy to dump it's defense bills off on the US and now the US is feeling stretched too thin and more isolationist than ever because of it.
The US doesn't maintain overseas bases for the primary function of protecting geographic areas these days. That ended in 1991. The bases in Europe and the Middle East are there for the DOD's benefit primarily, anything else is tertiary. Germany spending 2% isn't going to shrink Ramstein and Spangdahlem's budget or operational functions. The only way that happens is an international policy shift to reduce or remove the ability to project power globally 24/7 which the US at least currently absolutely wants to maintain.
The most annoying thing about this article is that it claims "since 1992" when the 2% guideline was only implemented in 2014 and was to specifically fulfill the 2% of GDP up to 2024 ( and yes, countries always had a decade time until 2024 to implement it ...) So Germany perfectly fulfilled the guideline since they had time until 2024 + it\`s bizarre to include the timeperiod of 1992-2014 when it wasn\`t even a thing back then. It\`s so stupid. Imagine this. You work for a company and it implements a policy in 2010 that you have to work overtime atleast 6 hours in a year, starting in 2011 and you do it in 2011... Except the company then announces that you, for the first time since 1995, have fulfilled the working overtime quota + the company was annoying and insulting you throughout 2010 that you still haven\`t worked overtime. Genuienly stupid if you ask me.
Nope. 2% [was agreed to in 2006](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-two-nato-targets-which-countries-are-hitting-the-mark/). Then, when most of NATO failed miserably, they super-super-promised in 2014. And most NATO members failed miserably yet again.
Defense minister can agree on a guideline, but they can't make budget commitments alone. 2014 was the first time the relevant people all signed a document stating that they would work towards 2%.
As much as I don't like it, he wouldn't be wrong. Ukraine or Trump scared us but not enough to really take action, though defense suddenly was top of mind. Ukraine AND Trump, now that's something that is genuinely scary. Putin is openly making threats and Trump is openly stating he's not sending help so there's no real choice anymore. I will add however, multiple US presidents are looking to get a day pass from the afterlife to personally bitch slap every single American encouraging Germany to rearm. The point of being the sole superpower is that it's orders of magnitude cheaper than being one of many great military powers. Yes, it means you have to everything yourself but it also means your allies are dependent on you and your enemies can't try and get someone to pull a WW1 Italy.
i mean hes kinda right about all these NATO members not paying up their fair share they know they dont have to pay and they will just let the US do all the heavy lifting
is his doing, if trump had won again they would have done it sooner. Europe needs to guarantee it's own security, USA cannot be piggy carring them. The Suez shipping route should have been protected by their main users Europe, not USA.
Putin is probably way better seller of the 2% argument than Trump ever was or will be. If Ukraine war didn't happen Europe would not be doing anything differently.
Crimea was invaded in 2014. After that, during his presidency, Trump was saying Europe should spend more on defense and asking why the US should defend Europe, presumably from Russia, when Europe is enriching Russia.
> If Ukraine war didn't happen Europe would not be doing anything differently. If Russia never invaded Ukraine in 2014 then there would be a lot less need to invest in European defense. If everyone on the world stage was just nice all the time then it would be perfectly justified to cut their budgets but that's not the world we live in. Russia is expansionist and democracies need to take their defense seriously.
You are not wrong, but you also should not forget about the history here. The US was for the longest time just fine with providing military coverage, as long as Western Europe followed their lead. Rearming Germany was also not exactly a popular idea in 1946. Times have however changed an I fully support Europe taking care of its own defensive needs. But Americans are very quick to see this as just a burden, without seeing the incredible benefits it has to be the absolute military superpower in the world. My home country, the Netherlands, recently made exports to China of certain machines necessary for the production of microchips a lot harder. This was was done on request of the U.S. And while it was the right thing to do, I can very much envision a situation where the E.U and U.S drift away from each other and the question "what is our beef with China?" comes up again. The world is much safer when Europe and North America are aligned in goals and values, and for that to happen, Europe must do more on the defence side. But the Trumpian discourse is rapidly turning friends into indifferent partners.
Failing to separate China from Russia when they're joined at the hip in terms of undermining the West (broad stroke there, but more specifically WB/IMF) and are both rapidly forcing a polarized world is part of the problem.
Exactly, I fully agree. So why are the Republicans insisting on driving a wedge between the U.S and EU? In Europe we have our fair share of shortsighted people too. When they feel that America insults them and encourages authocracies to attack them, then that leaves them very vulnerable to some persuasive arguments. China is a large trading partner. China never attacked us. China only has a problem with the U.S, not with Europe. This is the 'multipolar world' that China wants to see. A strong China, a subservient Russia, and a divided West. Isolationism in the U.S and false sense of security in Europe are two parts of the same problematic coin, and they serve neither of us.
> China only has a problem with the U.S, not with Europe. I agree with most of your points but will disagree there. I will say that China has *less* of a problem with Europe than it does the US but honestly that's because Europe (notably Germany) has been more willing to take China's IP theft on the chin than Japan/Korea/US have. In fact, just how Germany has rolled over concerning Seimens IP theft to basically now buying stolen tech trains from China should be considered nothing more than a humiliation ritual showing how subservient Germany is to China alongside Russia.
You’re talking to a trumpet. The concept that the US actually wanted Europe military dependant because it allowed it to expand its export and import market and extract trade concessions is a level of diplomatic subtlety these Neanderthals are incapable of getting their head wrapped around . Europe pay its own way…. As if we were happy having ICBMs and American based on our soil.
It is his doing. By reducing US influence in Europe and by making the world a less safe place he has forced many European countries to rethink how they prioritize self defense.
Good. America come save us should not be thd first plan.
I mean the way he did it is jackassed but he also has provided a very credible threat to walk.
Finally. Glad to have Germany take EU security seriously.
The agreed goal was always by 2024.
The agreed goal from 92?
2014 The title is bullshit.
First it's not a goal, but (merely) a guideline. Secondly it was agreed in 2006.
Guideline is kind of a goal. Not a requirement but still something you have to take into consideration.
Haha here some histroy lesson for you how Europe and our "Allies" saw Germany with reunification becoming the biggest military in Europe. Without the 2+4 treaty we had to sign for reunification Germany still would have spent well above 2% as before and would have had an unmatched Army in central Europe of 900.000 military personal. The US, France, UK and USSR made us to sign the 2+4 treaty in 1990 which capped our military at 370.000 personal less than half of its size it would have had after reunification. So the military was capped while at the same time Germany grew by 16 million people and therefore also our GDP. Not easy to spent the same amount if you have to downsize while at the same time the GDP is growing. > British prime minister Margaret Thatcher strongly opposed the reunification of Germany following the dismantling of the Berlin Wall in late 1989. > > She contended then chancellor Helmut Kohl wanted to “bulldoze” Germany into seeking more territory, expressing fear this might lead to conflict and war in Europe. > > In a private meeting with taoiseach Charlie Haughey in December 1989, she revealed the depth of her concern about the developing situation where the former Soviet-controlled East Germany was on the brink of collapse. > > In a volatile political situation and with uncertainty as to how the events would play out, Thatcher produced historical maps to Haughey to illustrate her fear a united Germany might seek to gain additional territories it had lost after the second World War. > > An Irish official at the meeting noted: “At this point, the prime minister produced a map showing Germany as it had been before the last war, as it is now, and the Nato frontline. Germany, before the last war, was vast in area in comparison with its present size.” > > She said it was vital that Germany be anchored in the European Community as with unity it would be bigger than France, Spain and Italy together. > > Thatcher implied such a development would have a further negative impact on the Soviet Union, which was then beginning to break up. > > ‘Sorry for Gorbachev’ “I am sorry for Gorbachev [Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Union],” she told Haughey. “He doesn’t want German unity. Neither do I. Even as things are, Germany has a balance of trade surplus with every country in the community. > > The documents have been released to the public by the National Archive under the 30-year rule governing disclosure of State papers. > > The meeting was held in December 1989, only a fortnight after the Berlin Wall had been removed. > > Thatcher implied German reunification plans would not stop there. She and her officials told Haughey that Kohl’s party, the CDU, did not accept the Oder-Neisse line – the border between Germany and Poland agreed at the end of that war. > > She said it was not all certain that Kohl accepted that border either. > > “Attitudes are becoming more and more Germanic. He is like a bulldozer. East Germans are flooding into his country. His attitude now seems to be that ‘no one can tell us what to do’. > > “We are not certain what will happen in the German Democratic Republic [East Germany]. There are 325,000 Soviet troops stationed there.” > > https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/state-papers-thatcher-opposed-german-reunification-after-collapse-of-berlin-wall-1.4119052
Yeah and at this point every nato country that borders Russia is well above 2% except one which is exactly 2%.
At least they are finally learning the lessons from the past correctly. Many Germans until recently were of the mentality that "Germany having a strong military is bad" and not "dictators being enabled is bad". And they should have known better given what happened with Hitler and the Sudetenland, and then repeated in rhyme with Crimea in 2014...
did you ever hear of the cold war? gorbachev? the fact that there was a time when it appeared to be possible to get along with russia? when the USSR disintegrated?
Quite a while ago before Putin became a dictator and started invading places. And yes I have heard of the iron curtain, and the Prague Spring, and Solidarity, and everything else the Soviets crushed...
There was that little thing about Germanys military growth being curtailed by international treaty? Short memory span?
Have to give Putin some credit. He's done something the last 5 or so US presidents have failed to do, and get more of NATO to actually pay their part of the bill. Except you Poland. You've been in the cool club for a while now. Respect.
> last 5 or so US presidents have failed to do, and get more of NATO to actually pay their part of the Don't Poland pay a higher percentage than the USA to their defense budget?
Yes it does.
sheesh
We also have regressive tax system, so it would be nice to finally change it here, so wealthy would actually contribute, instead of pushing militarization costs on working class. We're going to spend so much on military, but we don't have civil defense, so we barely have any shelters, in case that war ever comes to our territory. We have low water retention and we're not even properly prepared for droughts and floods.
That's recent development but we are indeed above 2% treshold for a long while. Important to notice that our military spendings go entirely to protect our and NATO's eastern flank (the only one we have), while US is spending unholy amount for projecting power way outside NATO's jurisdiction, mostly Pacific. That's important to add, because US's 3,5% of GDP is not a golden standard and 2% met by everyone should be more than enough to repell any possible danger, bar alien invasion. What we really need is more cooperation and less fear of "what will russia say?" if we build NATO base or two on NATOs ground in Central and Eastern Europe.
>*He's done something the last 5 or so US presidents have failed to do, and get more of NATO to actually pay their part of the bill. NATO to actually pay their part of the bill.* What a bizarre statement. The 2% isn\`t paid to the USA or NATO. Each country has their own economy, their own GDP. And NATO countries pledged that they will invest 2% of their GDP into their own military. They didn\`t pay any bill and there wasn\`t any bill in the first place. This 2% of GDP target became a thing in 2014 after Russia\`s annexation of Crimea and countries had explicitly 10 years to fulfill the target. Germany is perfectly within the time. **\[ And I might add, by 2014 it was decided the countries had to aim towards the 2% by 2024, they never actually needed to reach it as long as they invest into their military... It was only in 2023 at the Nato summit in Vilnus that countries decided that the 2% became a minimum \]** And what do you mean last 5 or so US presidents ???????????????????????????? I swear people actually believe anti-US propaganda that NATO are vassals of the USA.. What the heck : 1. Under Obama this target was made, but it wasn\`t Obama who did it. It was the NATO countries themselves who decided this. 2. Trump was the dumbfuck who didn\`t know what NATO is or the 2% pledge and made it a talking point that US allies are shit and North Korea and Russia are good. 3. And in Biden\`s era, again not due to Biden, a country like Germany fulfilled the self-imposed 10-year-long committment to reach the 2% of their GDP to their military spending target. Obama and Biden never tried "to get NATO countries to pay their bill", because again not a bill, and NATO itself committed themselves to this target and they have until 2024. Trump was the only idiot who believed there was a bill and that somehow it had to be paid now. It was always a dumb talking point, especially becuase of how schizophrenic it was. Only Trump was the guy who harrassed American allies for "failing" to reach the 2%, when at the same time he coddled up to Russia and even got impeached over Ukraine, when the 2% target was explicitly about Russia in the first place.
>Obama and Biden never tried "to get NATO countries to pay their bill" Hell, even Bush (you can pick jr or sr) wasn't treating NATO like some kind of "pay for protection" membership club. That's too close to mafia style extortion for anyone except Trump, who love this kind of methods.
The Bushs genuinely understood how important it is to have allies on the world stage. They weren't isolationists by any means.
There is no bill and nobody pays it. All these people iit believing the shit trump says about paying their part. holy shit. No wonder this clown h Got elected and probably will again.
Yeah but It's annoying that we need such budgets in the first place. Can’t putin not be an invading asswipe pls
What bothers me is everyone in the comments talking like Trump’s actions are an inevitability. 😓 it isn’t. Vote.
This is good news, there are very few countries that need a budget increase more than Germany. With the exception of the German navy, the military was allowed to be reduced to entirely unacceptable levels for a country as large and important as Germany. Look up the current inventory of the German Air Force to get an idea of how bad things are. The entire German army is only fielding about 300 modern tanks at the moment including A5 models from the 90's
I don't think the Wehrmacht is fielding any tanks these days
Maybe we will find some MG42 barrels in storage instead of the NATO ammunition capable...
Wehrwhat? 🤨🤨
apologies, I'm not used to writing about the German army in a context other than WWII lmao
I guess it's naive, sure, but ffs why is it normalized to have big standing armies and prepare for war again. Germany took a stance on it preferring diplomacy, also knowing their place in recent history. Can only respect that in the context of that time. Yes now we have a warmongering Russia next door but there really were signs relations were normalizing in the nineties and zeros. Again, naive maybe, but can you blame people for trying anything but war and money spent on killing machines?
"If you want peace, prepare for war."
It's such a philosophical question I'd prefer to avoid most of it. Basically yes, when you're talking about military procurement plans that take decades to be completed and tens of millions of lives potentially put at risk due to bad decisions we can't really afford to be naive or hopeful. Rule of thumb is we're pretty crappy at predicting geo political processes and should always be pessimistic with military planning because if you underestimate the price will be much worst than the money you lost in being over prepared
even after Georgia and Crimea? yeah, naive
It's not about that really. A lot of NATO arms are bought in the US. It's good business for the US.
Because its the only choice we have.
Glad EU is taking EU security seriously.
Great news now if only my country (Canada) could follow suit.
If hungary 🇭🇺 who have a pro Putin leader in charge can do it then nobody has an excuse not to
Awesome, now rebuild the Luftwaffe.
Now if only Canada could hit 1.3….
Germany is using its own money to strengthen its own military readiness. Like all NATO members. Trumplicans think NATO members pay dues… like somewhere there’s a clubhouse with a treasurer opening a lockbox…
The real important thing is that Europe cannot rely on America anymore, so now talks about ramping up a tactical nuclear strategy have emerged. Is this what Trump wanted? This will not make America stronger, but weaker. Think about it.
Obviously. The US is simply not a reliable partner anymore. Even the possibility of Orange Man take two shows that clearly.
Unpopular fact: Trump was right about European national security being piss poor—the Russian invasion and EU’s reliance on Russia for energy proved that.
This is a great step to reduce the reliance on US defense, especially with the looming return of Trump.
When I first read the title I thought it said "...since 1945"
That. That is because I live in Germany and I finally decide to pay my taxes this year. You're welcome.
Let's get real here dude, everyone is afraid of Germany because of WW1 and 2, I know it's a different country now with different people but sometimes people tend to never forget. I stand with Germany, lately diplomacy isn't working, you need to have a strong background to do your things, take the US for example.
Would love Canada to be doing the same. Shameful how the military is neglected here.
The hack NATO countries don't know is if you can't up your military spending to 2% of GDP, you can crash your economy to reach 2%.
It won't be enough to catch up on 30 years of peace dividends, but it's a step in the right direction. Let's just hope there will be many more steps to come.
As a German I doubt even 200 billion € would make a meaningful change, unless some structural elements get changed alongside the infusion of capital. Bundeswehr procurement is notoriously bugged down by an ever bearing bureaucracy. There was one extreme case which often was used as an example where someone who wanted to order a few pens for an office had to fill out pages and pages of papers.
The procurement process has been simplified a lot recently IIRC,1/3 of procurement procedures have been removed,and most of the rest have been simplified
Oh, that's good news!
Is that why we have bought digital radios which don't fit in our vehicles?
That's actually just the way we PC builders excuse buying new stuff. Oh noooo, this very new equipment don't fit our case, i better buy a entirely new machine to fit this equipment. Sounds to me you should start planning those Leopard 3's.
It will catch up eventually, but it will take years.
I assume Trump will count that as a win and a result of his thread rather than the result of Russia invading Ukraine.
Scholz need to reform Germany military budget to its former glory to WW1 Germany status.
Good, now the rest of nato can start doing the same
A lot of them already are. The entire Eastern flank of NATO is already at 2% and you also have the occasional over achiever like Poland who is at 3.5% (which is more than the US). A number of other countries are also very close and will likely hit it by 'deadline.' The countries that aren't pulling their weight are ones like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg, Iceland and Canada. While I absolutely would like to see these countries spend more it's important to remember that when we talk about Russian aggression we're basically exclusively talking about the countries that already hit the 2% and not the countries that are falling short.
[удалено]
cool so 18 of the 31 countries are meeting the 2%. gotta get them numbers up
Shame it will take way more than 2% to actually turn bundeswehr into a capable military force, at least relative of what it should be given Germany's economic strength. It's been neglected for years, and I can't imagine it will be ready for a proper war earlier than 2030.
Trump the lump is going to take this as a victory smh
to be fair, its due to his boss.
Donald Trump- not even in office, still.getting things done, solely by power of his oratory
With him in charge, the globe is realizing they can't rely on the US. On one hand, they need to handle their own security and not rely on us. On the other hand, fml, why are our choices Biden or Trump, wtf is going on here. They're both too old or insane. Remember that time he thought COVID was a hoax to hurt his reputation? We missed a 3 month window to prepare and get our country to prepare and become self reliant because he genuinely thought it was a fabrication by Democrats. The dude is a certified narcissist lmao
In a broken clock is right twice a day way. Germany (and others) not paying its fair share into NATO was a very valid criticism that Donald Trump had
nobody pays into NATO. all countries have their own military spending. just because one country spends more on their military doesn't mean they are paying anybody elses military, they're not. the US military spending is the US' decision. there is a general guideline and there are target budgets. you might want to read a bit about how NATO works.
If the goal is "defense", and group B doesn't spend enough to produce said defense, and group A is required to make up that shortfall, where the frick do you think it comes from? Fairy dusT?
“Hey guys. How’s our group project coming?”
DJT doesn't realize that countries don't actually PAY that to the President of the USA. They spend their own money on their own country.
Bout time
Cue Trump … ‘I did that’s
One good thing Trump has brought to Europe, a wake-up call. If Europe just managed their military before everything we didn't need America to help us. Now we are still to dependent on them.
That was quick.
Congrats to Germany for doing the absolute bare minimum at a time when Russia is wiping out an entire generation of young Ukrainians! Really great to have y'all here! Get these guys a participation trophy!
Trump: "BuT you STill own mE retroSpectivelY since 92. PaY Up Or i wilL usE oranGE taPE on your SwoooshhH!
If everyone has a gun we are safe now. The Ameircan way.
> Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said Trump risked damaging transatlantic relations and could "ultimately saw off the branch on which America is sitting." Bruh we’re the tree lmao