What is NATO? Is it really just the United States?

[para bellum]

I wouldn't go that far!! Very few countries are at the 2% level so in that we were both wrong. If you look at 2014 all the EE are below and generally very well below even those who by 2018 had managed to get themselves up.

I didn't say it was across the board- the countries that are at or above 2%, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania outnumber the Western ones. If you are going by the 2014 numbers, you should remember that those countries were in the process of transitioning to NATO standards. That takes time.

Look at it another way. Take the US out of the picture.

NATO is a mutual defense agreement, the centerpiece is Article 5. An attack on one is an attack on all.

Deterring an attack is in NATO's interest. A credible deterrent means you have the capability and the will to inflict unacceptable losses on an attacker. In that context, the amount of defense spending is a demonstration of a country's commitment to the mutual defense.

Your country is spending 2.3% of GDP. That's a demonstration of your commitment to defend your neighbors. Is that commitment reciprocated by Germany and Denmark and Spain for example? Are they as committed to the alliance as the UK? If the US left NATO, would your leaders be pressuring Germany to increase their defense spending? I think the answer is yes.

 

[alexa]

No, I'm saying Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump all asked NATO countries to pay the 2%.

Trump was the only one that was very forceful about it.

You a Trump supporter? He appeared to be wanting to destroy the bond between the US and Europe and came very close to being successful.

It's not a US made-up number- it's part of the NATO agreement. It's not a dictate, and it's considered the floor. More than 2% is welcomed. If everyone did it, NATO would be that much stronger.

I have never once heard anyone but you talking about this being a part of the NATO Agreement. I'd lay a bet that if it is that has happened very recently, possibly the time everyone remembers which is Obama.
People took it to heart and I think gave their commitments to Obama. Obama is the only person I have ever heard people in Europe talking about the 2% in this connection.

There is a feeling in the US that a big reason other countries slide, is because the US can be relied on to pick up the slack.

That is like a slogan and there could not be one person who has ever been on a US forum who has not heard it, though I did not hear it till Trump despite being on boards. I didn't hear anyone being bothered about it till Trump who we gathered wanted rid of NATO though of course it had happened, otherwise Obama would not have got them to make their commitments. The first I heard about it was from Obama and after that people started working towards it. Trumps as above.

The US wanted the East European countries moved away from Russia as soon as possible. I won't deny that some of them wanted that too but the US wanted that done. The EU was encouraged to take them in asap rather than use the usual strict routine so we got a lot of them to almost together and very quick. I don't think that was good for the EU and I cannot see them being at war with Russia now if it had not been for that.

Regardless of the number of Presidents who did or did not ask countries to give 2% I'd say that the reason for this

There is a feeling in the US that a big reason other countries slide, is because the US can be relied on to pick up the slack.

is propaganda given and repeated by the people to people in the US till it became what they believed they thought. I am not suggesting it was not the true. It clearly was. But why was it not said earlier when it was true as well. I would suggest at that time the US wanted Europe as its close allie - and under its thumb. It simply was not in the US's interest to lose Europe as its top Allie. Things are different now. The US is more interested in forming relationships with Asian Countries. Would we be at war with Russia now if we had not taken all these countries into the EU so soon I doubt it.

 

[alexa]

I didn't say it was across the board-

Yes, you did.

para bellium

Hmmm. I think if you look, you will find the exact opposite. The Eastern European NATO countries pay more than 2% of their GDP on defense, and Western European Countries and Canada are less than 2%. The US is 3-4%.

is a copy and past of what you say above.

the countries that are at or above 2%, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania outnumber the Western ones.

In 2021 they do. That will be because they felt more in need of NATO. They may outnumber the Western ones but they are not the only countries. You are just ignoring the rest. In 2021 Greece put in a higher percentage that the US itself and in 2014 it was still over 2% The only other country in this position is the UK above two for both 2021 and 2014. Croatia comes between the US and the UK with an amazing 2.7 in 2021though it was very close also in 2014. Estonia gets in very close to the UK at 2.28% though it was not there in 2014. Lativia gets in at 2.27% though it was below 1% in 2024 and Poland, Lithuania and Rumania also just sneaked in. Interesting the numbers which are calling themselves 2021 here are numbers which I have seen written as 2018 elsewhere. So the three countries which were above 2% in 2014 and 2021were Greece, the US and the UK and there were 6 East European countries not paying 2% so this

Parra Bellum

The Eastern European NATO countries pay more than 2% of their GDP on defense, and Western European Countries and Canada are less than 2%. The US is 3-4%.

was not accurate.

Countries have now been bringing their investment up. Greece has been afraid of attack for some time now. Possibly the reason for their position and the East European countries have all been shitting themselves since 2014 so that will be why they are making sure they are part of NATO. This is human nature. but as far as your belief that

If you are going by the 2014 numbers, you should remember that those countries were in the process of transitioning to NATO standards. That takes time.

Look at it another way. Take the US out of the picture.

NATO is a mutual defense agreement, the centerpiece is Article 5. An attack on one is an attack on all.

Deterring an attack is in NATO's interest. A credible deterrent means you have the capability and the will to inflict unacceptable losses on an attacker. In that context, the amount of defense spending is a demonstration of a country's commitment to the mutual defense.

[/quote]
I don't believe that with NATO. I believe that commitment comes from need. When countries are feeling vulnerable then they put in more. The UK of course puts in more because it still has an imperialist mindset and thinks doing that will keep that. People going against Russia now are doing it I would think because the EU has a responsibility towards its Eastern countries. As I said before I think the US's interest in Europe is fading. It does not see that it can get so much from Europe and so it is beginning to get irksome about NATO. Probably when you have one superbig and wealthy power and all the rest beneath it it is difficult to have that same concern you speak of. Unless there is nuclear war everyone knows that the US is going to be attacked by no one. They do not see the need to protect the US. After 2014 the Eastern European countries which got their rates up were those who were afraid of Russia and those who did not were those who were not. Interesting France who is not part of Nato is said to have put defence spending in 2021 as just over 2%

Your country is spending 2.3% of GDP. That's a demonstration of your commitment to defend your neighbors. Is that commitment reciprocated by Germany and Denmark and Spain for example? Are they as committed to the alliance as the UK?

Well I have given my reasons for why I believe the UK has the position it does and to be honest I am sure you will find other countries bringing their numbers up. Germany is bringing its numbers up. I have heard East Germans on forums not the least bit shy about making it clear they still see Germany's place as top of the world so I am not sure the encouragement of Germany to build up is necessarily a good idea. If Nato splits up obviously the EU will need to get its act together to get its army and everything, I see the UK as tottering around behind the US until the US manages to flick it off - but maybe not. We have pretty much no time to get things in order to avoid critical climate damage. Unless we all give up this idiocracy of war there will be no world for people to fight about.

 

[ESay]

Would we be at war with Russia now if we had not taken all these countries into the EU so soon I doubt it

It seems that you fall in the same fallacy as most West Europeans do (or at least did before the war). You seem to easily support giving back all East Europe under Russia's sphere of influence, because it would guarantee good relations with Russia and peace in Europe. But it wouldn't.

 

[para bellum]

I have never once heard anyone but you talking about this being a part of the NATO Agreement. I'd lay a bet that if it is that has happened very recently, possibly the time everyone remembers which is Obama.

The 2% defence investment guideline

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.

<snip>

The effects of the 2007-2008 financial crisis and the declining share of resources devoted to defence in many Allied countries, up to 2014, have exacerbated this imbalance and also revealed growing asymmetries in capability among European Allies. France, Germany and the United Kingdom together represent approximately 50% of the non-US Allies defence spending. 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.

Funding NATO

NATO is resourced through the direct and indirect contributions of its members. NATO’s common funds are composed of direct contributions to collective budgets and programmes, which equate to only 0.3% of total Allied defence spending (around EUR 3.27 billion for 2023). These funds enable NATO to...

www.nato.int

Yes, you did.

Okay, I should have said "on balance" or something of that nature. You said those countries were not paying the 2%- I already knew that was incorrect, I didn't bother look up the specific countries.

Your quote:

I know the UK spends more than the 2% and that most of the countries who substantially do not pay the 2% are Eastern European.

The majority of the countries in Europe that are "substantially less" than the 2% are Western European nations.

 

[para bellum]

This link goes back to 2009, so you can see what those Eastern European countries did over the time frame.

Look at graph 5, which goes back to the end of the cold war.

Clinton and Bush both complained about the declining NATO commitment from Europe, which is why the guidelines were adopted in 2006 (Bush).

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_03/20170313_170313-pr2017-045.pdf

 

[alexa]

It seems that you fall in the same fallacy as most West Europeans do (or at least did before the war). You seem to easily support giving back all East Europe under Russia's sphere of influence, because it would guarantee good relations with Russia and peace in Europe. But it wouldn't.

I do not have the power to do that and have never expressed an interest in so doing.

 

[alexa]

This link goes back to 2009, so you can see what those Eastern European countries did over the time frame.

Look at graph 5, which goes back to the end of the cold war.

Clinton and Bush both complained about the declining NATO commitment from Europe, which is why the guidelines were adopted in 2006 (Bush).

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_03/20170313_170313-pr2017-045.pdf

Ok will get back to you later.

 

[Turtlesoup]

|I think you will find for the first that countries pay proportionately. I know the UK spends more than the 2% and that most of the countries who substantially do not pay the 2% are Eastern European. I believe there is also a difference in what people possess to go to Nato and what they possess for their own private use....and frankly I am not sure the continual pressure on Germany to produce more is a good thing.

Nato does feel primarily the US. People were fighting to support the US. You are the country which is always at war. You are the country which makes its money by the production of weapons and war, so it should be expected that you would, for your own interest, put more in or even be obliged to. I think if it had not been for this Russian thing that the EU might soon have left NATO. You did not set this up for that did you?

I hear that soon Europe is not going to be a place where it is in the US's interest to protect as it has been since WW2. Possibly that is the reason for the whining in the US about what people pay.

Oh stop with the nonsense...

England has always had one war or another going on with their imperialism, fights over royal leaders, and invasions mainly by france and germany.....The US has bailed the brits out several times.

 

[Hum Dinger]

NATO was formed after WWII because the Soviet Army was huge yet decimated, the U.K. & French armies were decimated and the U.S. army was in pristine condition and growing. The British and French were scared of a Soviet attack, so they formed NATO to insure protection under the U.S. army.

Meanwhile, European Conservatives began an initiative to take over the U.S. political system. They pretty much succeeded. They've controlled the Republican party entirely for many years, and a big part of the Democrats. The U.S. became the strong arm of European Conservative policy throughout the world. They insured the U.S. continued to foot the bill for the majority of the cost of NATO.

But they made a major mistake - in order for Republicans to win elections they HAD to pander to the Bible Belt, appealing to archaic religious zealots and other such nitwits. Russia saw this and took advantage in 2016 and came awfully closed to forcing a demise of American Democracy by installing Trump as a puppet dictator. (Yes, we all know it...).

The Democrats are now so pissed at this attempt to overthrow Democracy in the U.S. that they've wholly embraced European Conservatives. Putin's continued policy of sending assassins to murder anyone he didn't like, anywhere in the world, and maiming U.S. diplomats (and others) with 'Havana Syndrome', turned every civilized nation against him.

The Ukrainians were dumb & arrogant enough to pick a fight with Russia and allow their country to be used as battleground between NATO & Russia. That's where we stand today.

 

[Indeependent]

NATO was formed after WWII because the Soviet Army was huge yet decimated, the U.K. & French armies were decimated and the U.S. army was in pristine condition and growing. The British and French were scared of a Soviet attack, so they formed NATO to insure protection under the U.S. army.

Meanwhile, European Conservatives began an initiative to take over the U.S. political system. They pretty much succeeded. They've controlled the Republican party entirely for many years, and a big part of the Democrats. The U.S. became the strong arm of European Conservative policy throughout the world. They insured the U.S. continued to foot the bill for the majority of the cost of NATO.

But they made a major mistake - in order for Republicans to win elections they HAD to pander to the Bible Belt, appealing to archaic religious zealots and other such nitwits. Russia saw this and took advantage in 2016 and came awfully closed to forcing a demise of American Democracy by installing Trump as a puppet dictator. (Yes, we all know it...).

The Democrats are now so pissed at this attempt to overthrow Democracy in the U.S. that they've wholly embraced European Conservatives. Putin's continued policy of sending assassins to murder anyone he didn't like, anywhere in the world, and maiming U.S. diplomats (and others) with 'Havana Syndrome', turned every civilized nation against him.

The Ukrainians were dumb & arrogant enough to pick a fight with Russia and allow their country to be used as battleground between NATO & Russia. That's where we stand today.

I'm happy you endorse Democrats that promise not to uphold law and order.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I'm happy you endorse Democrats that promise not to uphold law and order.

That was your take away from what I wrote? Really?

You are a prime example of cognitive dissonance!