The 2% Rule and Trump's NATO Abandonment Threats
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июн 2024
- Check out my book "How Ukraine Survived": amzn.to/47gnlEf. You can also read it for free by signing up for a Kindle Unlimited trial at amzn.to/3QMsBr8. (I use affiliate links, meaning I earn a commission when you make a transaction through them. Even if you read for free, you are still supporting the channel.)
Alliances, in theory, sound like a great opportunity to combine resources and deter a common opponent. However, once created, they also incentivize each member to reduce its military spending and free ride off everyone else. To combat this, NATO adopted a policy that states ought to spend 2% of their GDP on defense. But enforcing it is not as easy as it seems. This video explores the problem in light of recent comments by former U.S. President Donald Trump.
0:00 The Upshot of and Problems with Alliances
0:53 The Free Rider Problem
2:47 The Origins of the 2% "Rule"
4:54 Compliance with the 2% Standard
7:22 Trump's Solution to the 2% Problem
10:15 The Problem with Denying Collective Security
13:06 The Hidden Risk of Deterrence Failure
14:30 #wheresleslie
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Media licensed under CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
By Kremlin.ru:
en.kremlin.ru/catalog/keywords...
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
Can I just say on behalf of Norway that we *were* going to hit the target earlier, but then Russia invaded Ukraine, the price of oil and gas shot up, and therefore Norway's GDP grew faster than expected.
It's one of the weird problems of being a petrostate. Percentage of GDP is a moving target.
Then again, because you're a western aligned petrostate, you're more than guaranteed protection from the US.
When did they invade?
Cause the *War* has been going on for a (Far longer period) of time.
Your oil is fine. Your one of the biggest spender that can even compete with *Russia*
@@adam.maqavoyHe's referring to the "Special Military Operation". Yes, the invasion of Ukraine began in 2014. But the full scale invasion began in 22. But you already knew that. No need to be unnecessarily obtuse with people.
@@arutka2000 The world got its warning in 2014. The fact that it was possible to get off Russian gas in a matter in a matter of months proves that it could have painlessly been done in the prior 8 years. Norway's kinda a special case because of its own oil and gas reserves, but Europe broadly should have stopped procrastinating a decade ago.
@@adam.maqavoy Right now it seems Norway will reach the 2% of GDP target in 2024 so this video is a bit outdated. But in any case, it wasn't the invation in itself that changed the equation but the sanctions so it's 2022 that counts, not 2014.
There are four factors this oversimplified "percentage of GDP by 2024" discussion misses, not only for Norway but for all NATO countries:
1. We don't know yet. The GDPs for 2024 are still guesses - educated guesses, yes, but still not at all certain. The national budgets aren't set in stone either. The actual spending will be different and not known until early 2025 at best.
2. Efficient resource management takes careful planning and that isn't done over night. This is especially relevant for Norway but also for other countries. According to Norway's 2021 GDP, millitary spending shuold be about 10 billion USD to reach the 2% target. Now we're suddenly talking 12 billions. It takes time to figure out the best way to spend that extra money.
3. Availability. Once you've decided what new shiny equipment you want to buy for your military you still have to wait for it to be delivered. In the current situation that can take years. The military industry of the NATO and NATO-friendly countries already had serious backlogs even before the Ukraine war. As it is now, not only do the manufacturers have to try their best to supply Ukraine, they also have to cater for all the countries around the world who figured out that Russia wasn't a reliable supplier after all. New factories have to be built (and are being built) to cover the increased demand and that again takes time.
4. The CFE treaty of 1990 is still in place and it limits the number of various weapon systems each European country is allowed to have. Russia violated the treaty long ago of course but the other signees have still been reluctant to do the same. This seems to be changing now but it has certainly been a factor that limited many countries' ability to reach the 2% target.
The most mind blowing information in this video is that the Vice President lives at the US Naval Observatory. That's one of those things I've never thought about before.
Yeah, I always thought he/she lived in the White House.
@@warman1944 The white house really isn't that large. And it serves as both living quarters and working office for the president, so anything that hasn't absolutely got to be there, is probably a good idea to locate somewhere else. I don't think the vice president would appreciate living in a closet size space, like some college student.😉😄
Funny thing is the Royal palace in Stockholm. It's huge, because it was built (began 1697) to not only accomodate the king, but also accomodate parliment as well as the national library. Both of which however later had their own separate sizeable buildings built. These days however, the Swedish King only uses the city palace as office, and lives in another Royal palace just outside Stockholm, modeled as a mini version of the French Versallies palace. But the Swedish mini-version isn't that small either, since the Versallies palace is ABSOLUTELY INSANE in size!
@@warman1944 I assumed it was Blair House because that's where Harry was when he couldn't reside in the White House and they (some morons or other) tried to whack him. Just assumed that everyone moved down a residence.
Too many juicy targets living in one spot. @@warman1944
@@andersgrassman6583would another would another Lisbeth Salander novel set in the present day make sense or has that ship sailed?
I have an image of Dr. Spaniel giving a lecture at 12x speed and all of his students eyes glazing over.
😅
Not glazing over melting, but out of their ears 😂
Supporting evidence and facts are a hard sell these days.
Does anyone know what Dr Spaniel looks like though?
@@thomasjohnson2862 Dr Spaniel is an intellectual. It's about thinking, not looks. His thoughts are his "looks", so to speak. So lines on maps, his animations and illustrations, is actually his "looks". He may well not care that much about his personal visual appearance. Most of my university lecturers in Sweden don't put much or even any effort on looks. With funny examples, like one giving a lecture wearing a sweater inside-out! The lecturer had such a good flow going though, drawing economic diagrams with such fervor, that the chalk dust formed a cloud around him, that no one wanted to interrupt him to tell him before break - at which time he himself had also noticed. And we had a good laugh together.
The best way to win a war is to deter the other party from starting that war in the first place.
not a war
@@anreey8632 "There is no war in Ba Sing Se" head ahh
“Defeat your enemy before the battle has begun” - Sounds like something from Sun Tzu 🤔
@@UGNAvalon It'd be more accurate to say "Make sure your enemy knows that they'll be defeated before the war has begun".
Simply being able to do so isn't enough to prevent the war, the other side needs to know it (whether true or not).
What if you will win and winning is beneficial
The post cold-war "peace dividend" has lead to a lot of complacency. Putin has shattered that.
It wasn't Putin who did it.
Now he's responsible for the "war dividends", very true
@@user-si2dr1pn3p Putin didn't do what?
@@user-si2dr1pn3p Yes, he has.
@@user-si2dr1pn3p If you're implying that Orange Jesus may have had a hand, perhaps, but only at the margin. Absent Putin's aggression there would be little reason to change the status quo.
3:42 It can't be a William Spaniel video without Lines On Map(TM) !
Lines In Sand ™ edition
Is this his voice or a program
@@george2113 it's really him
You do have to draw the line at 2%, skimmed milk is grim
Half and Half is Better!!!!
@@industrialathlete6096 maybe but in England we drink regular milk in Tea
Whole Milk all the way!! Anything else is just water dyed white 😂 (probably why i’ve started to get fat!)
Drink full fat milk and go for a run!
Skim milk is the best milk
I'm glad that , at least, the nordic countrys getting their act together. We cant be dependent on USA.
As an American, I have to sadly agree with this statement. I wish it wasn’t true and that we were a better ally, but the US can’t be counted on. Just ask Zelenskyy. He’s been fighting the Ruskies with one hand tied behind his back bc America refuses to send him everything he needs. We’re always dribbling out the support little bits at a time. 😣
"Getting the act together" is a bit of a stretch considering how far ahead of Russia Europe already was and is,
Makes it sound like not enough money was being spent to deter Russia when in fact enough was being spent to easily defeat Russia.
Europe deciding to double spending from only outspending Russia 5 to 1 to now outspending it 10 to 1 really isn't necessary, the Nordic countries don't need to have large enough militaries to handle Russia themselves.
@@HavaWM Problem is the US can't be everywhere at once, there's so many commitments that it already has and Ukraine can't get to the top of the list. I don't recall the US being the world police outside of the movie and how you can judge them as if they should drop everything for one country
@@legoeasycompanyIt's amazing how much America is criticised by every country that relies on it for defence.
@@Pan_Z 15 years ago people bitched about the US in Iraq (which was a mistake), 10 years ago people bitched ago about the US intervening in other countries. And now current day people are bitching at the US to do something, amazing how people will flip so quickly.
Personally I thought Perun had some pretty good insight on the matter. Basically pointing out that if you just collect enough allies you still come out ahead, even if their contributions aren't that large. This is because every one still adds to your own ability in various small ways because they are now tied to you and in total can thus grant you more then you'd get from just a few allies (For instance in gaining more scale of ones internal arms industry, mass production has a way of spreading out R&D cost and reducing cost per unit). And secondly that making the cost to entry not to high means it becomes far far easier to collect this large collection of allies.
Thus making all your allies fully contribute oddly enough can mean you effectively come out behind where you'd otherwise possibly could be.
That's nonsense.
@@CedarHunt Which part and why? Or do you not really know and it just seems some how wrong to you?
The whole thing. The proposal that freeloading allies are valuable just by being in the alliance is ridiculous. Also, nobody is saying NATO members contribute the same amount. The call is for members to spend an amount proportional to their GDP that they have already agreed to. So, the premise is false.
You keep using this word…”contributions” like some kind of Trump puppet. That’s not how NATO works. It’s not a collective, there’s no NATO army that everyone throws money in a pot to support. Every nation retains absolute sovereignty and decides its own military/defence policies according to it needs. Many countries have near zero risk of being invaded by some other country, they have no far flung empire to defend. Other countries like USA and France have substantial overseas interests and reliably use their military power for direct selfish interests. So let’s not have the daycares paying the same fire insurance premiums as the fireworks factory and pretend that’s being fair and equal.
@@CedarHunt This premise is false. The 2% of GDP is a guideline, and not a rule. In addition more allies gives the NATO forces more territory to build bases, infrastructure, and conduct training. Putting pressure on NATO countries to spend more is completely fair, but to say that allies that fall below the 2% line is useless as a partner is flat out wrong.
denmark has joined the 2% mark and is currently spending 2,4% of its GDP
Thats old news and you know it.
no i got updated in 2024 @@adam.maqavoy
@@adam.maqavoyIt's new enough to not have been mentioned in the video... probably because the earliest reports of Denmark spending above 2% came less than 2 months ago, in mid-February this year.
I always thought the Danes were some of the toughest customers in NATO.
Can you explain further@@MM22966
The art of war is to convince the other side not to attack, we have already failed here.
Yes and no. Ukraine is not in NATO and, given the feeble Russian performance against Ukraine it is hard to believe that even the craziest Russian leader would attack a NATO country - Even 1% of NATO countries GDP is far more than 6% of Russian GDP
@@N.i.c.k.HI hope that this is the correct assessment.
@@N.i.c.k.H
A Russian attack against NATO is very likely and probably has already happened (with Russia blowing up Nordstream and carrying out chemical weapons attacks in the UK). But it isn't the WW2 style 'invade to seize territory' attack.
If Russia attacks it'll be northern Finland or another remote area, using some excuse about a 'buffer zone' or 'opressed ethnic Russians' so that they can de-escalate if it blows up. The Russian aim will be to challenge NATO Article 5.
And when someone like Trump then backstabs his allies or worse there's a general 'Should we really go to full war over this strip of land' mood in NATO, article 5 has ceased to function, NATO has ceased to function and it'll be everyone for themselves, which would be a massive Russian victory.
Russia will then wait 5-10 years to await further political NATO collapse, before starting to fully invade other countries like Romania, Estonia, etc.
@@N.i.c.k.H Yes, but a single country's efforts are more efficient than 32 country's fragmented efforts. And as we all know, 70% of defense costs go to personnel, who in USA/Europe earn 10x more than in Russia (at least officially, they make up for meagre salary with corruption).
@@N.i.c.k.H Both UK and the US singed the Budapest Memorandum that was supposed to guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty.
Well played with the Montenegro comment at the end.
they are sneaky fookers
Angela Merkel: We would like to welcome your country to the European Union
Zelensky: Oh fuck! Sorry, yes! Wow, abs Ukrainians have been waiting for this so much time, thank you very much.
Angela Merkel: Oh no no no no, sorry, I meant to call to Montenegro
Zelensky: в в Черногорию отправляют пять миллионов ракет Черногорию отправляют пять миллионов ракет
Other issues aside: 2% milk is already gloriefied water. Proper milk has at least 3,5% fat, good milk has 3,8%.
Here, 4% is considered regular milk. But a lot of people do go for "Medium" milk...
I call it ``red milk`` (it comes in red bags/red capped jugs) 3.25% is the most bone-in milk I can find around here.
You should try to train your palate to accept less cream in milk; I heard you get significant cardiovascular benefits with even 2%.
...Of course, I just split the difference with the amount of cheese🧀 I eat
Sounds like Poland.
I agree 100%. I only buy at least 3.8% organic grass fed milk. And yogurt gotta be 10% fat at least.
Percentages of GDP on 'a common defense' within NATO has been a sore point since the 1970's. I worked at NATO's military headquarters, SHAPE, Belgium from 1979 thru 1982. I recall many meetings, studies, papers, etc. with this subject included on the agenda
Interesting and I got so many questions.
I'd love to know how those years were experienced by you. Things were pretty "wild" during those years. Without knowing the future I imagine there must have been times of creeping dread regarding how things were developing?
Not connected but I'm curious about this; what were the view on Finland and Sweden regarding the cold war. Not asking about any particular field but about the possible development of the cold war in general?
@@JKS_Craftingalmost everyone was spending over 5%, the US was over 10%
@@bellisarius6968 No, that is incorrect.
Let's take 1975 as an example.
USA: 5.62%
Canada: 1.86%
UK: 5.34%
Germany: 3.28%
France: 3.20%
Italy: 1.98%
Belgium: 3.07%
Turkey: 5.12%
Greece: 5.85%
Portugal: 4.10%
Netherlands: 2.84%
Norway: 3.21%
Denmark: 2.40%
Iceland: no military
Luxembourg: 0.87%
This is a snapshot in time. One may look at Greece and Turkey and conclude they were really pulling their weight, but the two were in a conflict over Cyprus, so defence spending jumped greatly for both, then fell to the 4.5% to 3.5% range a few years later once tension reduced and remained so until end of Cold War. Portugal's spending was decreasing from a high of 5.96% a few years earlier as it was dealing with colonial conflict.
If we look at the flagrant under spenders of the past 50 years, the three are Canada, Luxembourg, and Iceland. Canada was under 2%, often well below, for 46 of the last 50 years. Luxembourg was just above 1% for only 5 of the past 50 years. And Iceland was nothing.
Denmark has been under 2% since 1990. Norway under 2% since 2002. Netherlands under 2% since 1994, Portugal under 2% since 1998, Belgium since '92, Italy since '90, Germany since '92, Denmark since '90.
Greece and Turkey has been above 2% consistently since the end of the Cold War. France has been mostly just below 2% since 2006. UK mostly above 2% - in the 2.3% to 2.5% range for most post-Cold War years with a 4-year period of being just under 2% until 2019. During the post-Cold War years the US ranged from nearly 6% to 3.12%, no year below 3%, and many years between 4% and 5%. In the post-WWII era its highest spending was in 1966 at 9.42% as it entered Vietnam. Post-Korea and pre-Vietnam it ranged from 7.6% to 9.3%.
I omitted the new members because they've been under 2% consistently though Poland is nearly 4% now. Spain joined Nato in '82. It spent between 2.5% and 3% until the end of the Cold War. Since '95 it's been under 2%.
Some may object with 'We're at 2%', but this is a recent development for most Nato members that were under 2% habitually since the end of the Cold War. Canadian PM Trudeau informed Nato that Canada will never attain 2%.
All data from World Bank's development indicators.
@@bellisarius6968 No, that is incorrect.
Let's take 1975 as an example.
USA: 5.62%
Canada: 1.86%
UK: 5.34%
Germany: 3.28%
France: 3.20%
Italy: 1.98%
Belgium: 3.07%
Turkey: 5.12%
Greece: 5.85%
Portugal: 4.10%
Netherlands: 2.84%
Norway: 3.21%
Denmark: 2.40% I
celand: no military
Luxembourg: 0.87%
This is a snapshot in time. One may look at Greece and Turkey and conclude they were really pulling their weight, but the two were in a conflict over Cyprus, so defence spending jumped greatly for both, then fell to the 4.5% to 3.5% range a few years later once tension reduced and remained so until end of Cold War. Portugal's spending was decreasing from a high of 5.96% a few years earlier as it was dealing with colonial conflict.
@@bellisarius6968 No.
Let's take 1975 as an example. USA: 5.62%; Canada: 1.86%; UK: 5.34%; Germany: 3.28%; France: 3.20%; Italy: 1.98%; Belgium: 3.07%; Turkey: 5.12%; Greece: 5.85%; Portugal: 4.10%; Netherlands: 2.84%; Norway: 3.21%; Denmark: 2.40%; Iceland: no military; Luxembourg: 0.87%
This is a snapshot in time. One may look at Greece and Turkey and conclude they were really pulling their weight, but the two were in a conflict over Cyprus, so defence spending jumped greatly for both, then fell to the 4.5% to 3.5% range a few years later once tension reduced and remained so until end of Cold War. Portugal's spending was decreasing from a high of 5.96% a few years earlier as it was dealing with colonial conflict.
I think part of the reason for the "rule vs. suggestion" quandary is that none of the members 75 years ago anticipated that NATO would be so successful and long-lasting.
I think an overlooked part of the NATO budget commitment problem is the tension between the USA and EU countries on how to spend the money.
The interest of EU countries is to form a single defence community, while the US interest is to keep them separate and dependent on them, not to mention avoid the creation of a continent-sized peer power, as shown by NATO opposition to an autonomous European collective defence system.
The US interest is for European countries to buy American weapons (Trump was fairly open about this), while for the European countries is developing their own industries.
As these two opposing sets of interests intersect, the outcome is Europe being slow to rearm because it's unable to use the money as efficiently as possible, which would mean through a single security apparatus.
None of what you are claiming is true.
This has been an ongoing issue for many years, to massive frustration of especially france who has been very vocal about this.
But with the departure of the uk out of the eu a large obstacle to this has gone away recently.
@@CedarHunt all of it is true, your ignorance on it does not make it false. EU nations however with the help of statements made by Trump have increased support for a joint EU armed force and defense and even convinced parts of the opposition in EU to be pro EU armed forces. So if Trump was thinking "America first" in relation to manufacturing in the weaponry department then he has utterly failed his nation.
@@ashamahee No surprise when Trump utterly fails his nation! Happens every day.
Do you have any idea? How much of a shit show it would be to try to get the many militaries of europe to operate under a single security apparatus?
Norway are planning to reach 2% this year, currently we are at 1.80%. But we do not have the fastest system, so they have to wait until the next budget
You are Norwegian I assume. Brother, I love Norway, and as an American , I back you guys up all the way whatever Norway does. I have confidence Norway will do the right thing next year.
As I understand it, you would actually have reaches the 2% earlier. If oil prices hadn't suddenly risen.
So if I understand correctly, it wasn't a matter of a slow system. But rather Global changes that made you wealthier, then predicted, after you're military budget was set.
So in my mind, Norway is doing it's part. Anyway, the 2% is just an arbitrary guideline, not a har limit. And you guys have been aiming for it.
@@soul0360 Politicians can only use 3% of the oil income for the budget, 97% goes out of the country investing heavily in stocks, projects and housing all over the world. But that also makes it so we can't just sell those assets at when ever we want, we want to profit from it. So even though Norway have a high income from the oil industry, most of those money is saved for the future generations when the oil isnt a option anymore. And it creats millions of jobs all over the world, like in the US 400K Americans are making a living from our projects and it effects over a million jobs.
On top of that the military planning takes time, and because of the uncertainty around Sweden and Finland NATO members it made it harder. Because Norway wants to work close with the rest of the Nordic countries.
Give us our oil!🇸🇪
@@dahlizz99 you had the chance at getting oil fields back in the 60s for parts of Volvo, but the deal never went though because of Volvo. So i guess you'll have to blame them.
Man I would have never guessed that openly encouraging Russia to attack Nato undermines collective security. Learn something new every day.
I think an interesting discrepancy with the 2% figure is that not all spending is made equal. Not only do nations have vastly different purchasing powers and local wages but also when it comes to the production of equipment it matters a lot if 2% of your GDP is going to importing weapons vs 2% of your GDP going into domestic production ultimately stimulating the economy and being recaptured through taxes. The 2% mark then is kind of flawed in so far as it might incentivize the wrong kind of spending, or have countries end up with less or more material than they actually need. Especially considering the US is the country that captures most of those 2%nds that goes toward buying foreign weapons.
Yes, I was wondering the same. What is to stop a country from solely expanding its enlisted ranks to achieve the 2% goal. The salary paid to the new soldiers plus the cost of education, training, new military housing construction, food, utilities, base related support and amenities, and spousal/family benefits can be 100% recycled and recaptured into the domestic economy. This would add a zero benefit to NATO while boosting domestic jobs, reducing unemployment, reducing domestic poverty, and reducing domestic poverty related crime.
The 2% figure should be qualified and subject to NATO review and approval as to both quantity and quality in meeting the joint needs, and purposes, and goals of NATO as a whole.
I don't necessarily think the "2%" is in order to guarantee a more effectively combat force. I think it's more a way to prevent countries from letting their military just fall into absolute complacency. Or at the very least, intended to do. Whether it does may or may not matter. I think everyone just wants to see some effort.
I can't speak for the Europeans as a whole, but in France the insistence of Trump for the “2% of GDP” figure is widely interpreted as a “Buy American” command. And, effectively, most NATO countries comply.
What remains to be seen is - in the hypothesis of a two-war situation - how much and at what rate the ammunition & spare parts would be delivered by the US arms manufacturers to these NATO countries, if there were a crunch in the US production facilities.
With the prospect of a Trump-inspired “America First” Isolationist policy, and with the hapless situation in Congress for the ammunition resupply of the Ukrainian Forces, the NATO countries are not any more blindly confident in the width and orientation of Uncle Sam's umbrella. __ .
I can't speak for the Europeans as a whole, but in France the insistence of former Pres. Trump for the “2% of GDP” figure is widely interpreted as a “Buy American” command. And, effectively, most NATO countries comply.
What remains to be seen is - in the hypothesis of a two-war situation - how much and at what rate the ammunition & spare parts would be delivered by the US arms manufacturers to these NATO countries, if there were a crunch in the US production facilities.
With the prospect of a Trump-inspired “America First” Isolationist policy, and with the hapless situation in Congress for the ammunition resupply of the Ukrainian Forces, the NATO countries are not any more blindly confident in the width and orientation of Uncle Sam's umbrella. __ .
@@petertownsend252 The spending target includes a requirement that a given per cent of it is on new military hardware.
Something else to factor in is how the money is spent. If every NATO member built everything themselves, then you might have a hodge-podge of systems. If each country invests in building a specific component or weapons system, then you can get economies of scale. However, the purchasing of systems may not be even, if each weapons system needs several of one component and one of another component, which would create inequalities. Another possible way to invest in defense more efficiently by using economies of scale is to have systems built en masse at one location from which everyone purchases. That last one might be the desire of US defense contractors and could result in some persons imagining that NATO partners need to pay the US 2% of their budget if they want to get weapons from the US.
The U.S. interferes with other countries and has military bases all over the planet. If it didn't try to make the rest of the world into little Americas perhaps it wouldn't require as much assistance from others. I'd bet that most of the world sees America as the biggest threat to stability over all. When was the last time that the U.S.A. was not involved in an armed conflict? Their economy is driven by war - there is no real accounting for the budget of the Pentagon whereas politicians , especially Republicans bemoan spending on helping the poorer members of its society with anything, calling it socialism. The people at the top of the food chain, however have their hands out whenever there is a downturn in the economy. The Staes has but one objective-money and lots of it. That's the real religion in the country.
It might be because U.S. is spearheading the discourse, but I don't understand why this isn't mentioned, as is for many countries in Nato a big chunk of the said 2% are pumping it directly into the American economy or rather the military industrial complex.
New member states such as Sweden, Finland and the Baltic states are expected to upgrade their arsenals with technology that is available mainly from the States. And they call it democracy.@@Johnny-Sideburns
There are NATO standards for many things to avoid redundancies/incompatible ammo/etc and create economies of scale, ie small arms chambering/ammunition, mortar/artillery sizes, etc. Essentially the most used, highly expendable items. But then each country has specialty items that might not fit with other systems but are in low enough usage that many just buy "off the shelf" (like sniper systems, really light/novel machine guns for special forces, things like that)
The higher-end things like fighters is where it get's to be a redundant mess. Like if Ukraine were to receive F-16's and the fighters from Sweden (I think... can't remember their name. I think Saab has something to do with them) that means you need bespoke maintenance crews for each system, and air maintenance is one of the costliest of all expenditures. Though they were just admitted to the alliance (or is that still in limbo?) so I assume they'll be brought into line with stocking F16/18/35, etc in time? Idk, no clue if missiles produced in different counties can all be used on a platform like the F-16? Someone with air knowledge would have to chime in on that...
Really don't know how you solve for this as you'd essentially need a single government overseeing defense. I'm sure US defense contractors would gladly take the business, but I don't see all the European contractors being on board with it, lol.
Solution: obtain license to construct the platform in question, then build it locally. That way you both have local employment AND a logistics chain to maintain that platform.
4:22 But you only read the first two sentences. (Can confirm 4x speed, playback on 0.25x for correct speed)
And the text wasn't missing an "and" where he pointed to.
Mr Spaniel, your confluence of expertise, entertainment and topicality to educate us about the very practical ramifications of game theory is much appreciated.
Thanks for the summary.
In romania the defence budget was raised to 2% but then also raised pensions and all sorts of crony handouts... then they just ask the government for extra money for actual purchases... romania is poor and the army is far from modern... realistically the budget should be around 4-5% but those people arent there to do defence theyre there to build themselves huge mansions and send their kids to school abroad
I find so much value in your content!
Thank you for your work and cheers from Bulgaria.
Thank you so much! That was very generous.
@@Gametheory101 but does it cover 2% of his gdp?
12:25 where did you get the number of 180 000 strong army for Finland? I guess you misspoke and meant 280 000 instead.
Also that is the planned war time strength with total reserve of 870 000.
@@justskip4595 "where did you get the number of 180 000 strong army for Finland?"
The website of the Finnish Army (Maavoimat) lists its war-time strength as 180k men. You can easily check this yourself. Of course, the Navy and the Air Force come on top of that but they'd likely wield much smaller numbers.
"planned war time strength with total reserve of 870 000"
I think that's just the total size of the reserve, i.e. it's the amount of people who have gone through military training and are still military age (and haven't fallen out of the reserve for some other reason). That amount of people couldn't actually called up, at least not very soon, so it's more of a paper figure.
@@seneca983 I have never heard of that and in all official stuff I have seen different numbers than that. Searching through stuff I find Intti website mentioning the 280k, news talking about 280k, Ruotuväki also with 280k (which is basically army news paper) and only differing number I found was a pdf from Puolustusvoimat that has 230k in it and no date for the pdf.
What is the reason for me mentioning the size of reserve is that it's indication that the number he claimed to be motivated troops would likely be higher than the one stated as it did not account for those that would be rotated in or could likely be tapped in other ways.
Also if for some reason you would choose to go with the Maavoimat only which I could not verify with my search, you'd for some strange reason be only focusing on one section of the Defense Forces.
I still think the number stated in the video is wrong one to use even if it would have different explanation that misspeaking 280k as 180k.
@@seneca983I am not sure, but maybe 180 000 knows their wartime position and have trained also after military service. Some of them are training voluntarily and have military gears home.
@@jounisaari9471 I don't think the 180k refers to any particular subset of the reserve. More likely, it's the amount that could and would be called up in a war, at least in initial rounds of mobilization. The entire reserve can't be mobilized because there probably isn't gear for everybody nor enough staff officers to lead that many units. Also, people would still be needed in the civilian economy too. Thus the planned war time strength of 180k for the Army. Though, I suspect in a protracted war more would be mobilized eventually.
Thank-you sir. Clever young blokes like you, Adam S. & Perun give me hope for the future.
OMG i had to stop my 5-mile run to laugh at the Trump-hands joke. A+
The underlying source of problem in all these issues somehow always starts with an R and rhymes with "asha"
That plug at the end of the video was next level 🤣
ThanksMuch for posting !
Outstanding video!! Thanks for your work to prepare of!
I don't call losing 3600 troops in Iraq a free ride
For murricans it is, they love that shit. Or at least they used to
I shared your sentiment in the past, but I think the Ukraine war has demonstrated - soberingly so - how relatively light of a time we had it in OIF/OEF. Even if you go full Suchomimus propaganda mode and say 'lol russia 2 dum slava submarine hurr', you can still discard the entire Russian experience if full as incompetence and look at our own casualties in Vietnam instead. There's still an incredible gulf in between the figures. Not like it hurts any less to think how many people we lost for how little we gained in the two decades post-2001 but any way you slice it, could have been so, so, so much worse.
My information is that Romania not only reached the 2% target, but that they even have a law of the country that they have to have this amount on military.
Great great explanation mr. Spaniel!
You always give words to thoughts i have. Thanks
Thank you for sharing, keep up the good works
NATO during the Wales summit in 2014 agreed to *start* moving *towards* 2% *by* 2024. Not sure where people get the idea 2% had to be reached by 2024.
100% this.
It is so annoying how journalists miscommunicate it, and even some politicians.
Also, it's how much countries should spend on THEIR OWN MILITARY. Listening to the Orangegutan it sounds like it's as if NATO members are supposed to pay money to the US and/or the US is footing the bill instead.
An agreement to start doing something in a decade is kinda silly, don't you think? That is probably why people assumed differently.
Unfortunately, none of that matters. Trump is likely to be President. It doesn't matter if he's wrong. He'd probably wave the white flag in Ukraine, and maybe just abandon NATO entirely. His supporters will be cheering him on. It would be a terrible idea, but there's nothing to be gained by arguing with him.
Speaking as an American, I can confidently say the US is not a reliable partner. Spouting "it's only a guideline!" won't matter much with Russian tanks rolling across Europe. 2014 was the time to stop procrastinating.
@captainufo4587 yes that's obviously stupid, but it does cost the US money when Nato countries free ride. We have to spend that much more because we are covering for the free riders.
One of the reasons why Poland did ramp up military expenses is because we are terrified of abandonment. We have a collective trauma from being abandoned during WWII (how fair it is to say that UK and France did abandon us, and were not just too weak to do anything, matters very little to the trauma). And I don't know about government or broader public, but when I heard what Trump said, it stroke great fear for our future. Even the fact that we now spend the most in NATO on military, matters very little if Trump would become the president, because it shows that it is a thing on the table. And when it becomes a thing on the table, we all know that spineless president like Trump would not make a tough decision to fight Moscow. Even assuming he is free of Moscow's influence.
Poland gets it. Arguing how to parse the NATO guidelines has no bearing on what the US actually does.
Oh, they were definitely abandoned in WW2. The Germans barely had anything on the French border. If they had actually invaded they would've taken much of the country practically unopposed and forced them to move their forces from Poland to stop it.
Don't know what that would've meant regarding the Soviet invasion, though.
Uh yeah, as the other guy said, France and Britain definitely could have done something about it,
France did actually invade Germany while Germany was invading Poland, the French field marshal decided it had to be a trap because they were rushing forward practically unopposed towards the industrial centers of Germany so he ordered a retreat back to the Maginot and waited for the Germans to stop being busy in Poland and come protect their borders.
Germany in fact had left the French border almost utterly undefended as they didn't think France would actually uphold their promises to Poland and just like with the invasion of Czechoslovakia Hitlers plan was to just surrender and say it was all a prank if the French had acted.
I wish he mentioned how Poland spent more than the US (as % of GDP) last year
Thank you.
Thanks William
I am not an expert on this in practice or theory, but I think specialization could be a possible solution. European countries which cannot manufacture all of their own weapons just pick a small selection, sell their excess, and buy the excess of other countries, possibly even those who are specializing too. Everyone spends less than they would if they had several industries, and everyone has up to date weapons. Of course, they could already be doing this or there's some problem with this I don't know about.
And those states that freeloaded to the benefit of their social welfare systems can step in by taking in more refugees, medically caring for more of the war-wounded, and/or sending more cash to sustain the Ukrainian federal govt., medical supplies, and humanitarian aid.
There is some of that going on (the F35 project for example) but it doesn't really work on a large scale for a variety of reasons, from the fact that national militaries always need to be self-reliant to a degree, to different requirements, budgets, philosophies of spending/military prep, internal politics, preserving the national defense industry, and even things like preparing against those times when an alliance is NOT going to be there. Imagine if the United States went to war, and France disagreed with the reason (which has happened), and a key widget the US military needed to fight was ONLY produced in France? Nobody would tolerate that on a wide scale, and they don't. (and not just the US)
@@MM22966 , yeah, that could be a problem. I was thinking of this for smaller European nations which would be less likely to fight wars on their own. Nowadays, I don't think Belgium isn't going to get up to much without NATO or the European Union.
@@no1ofconsequence936 That is true, but the way the NATO charter is written (and this episode makes plain), the smaller countries could REFUSE to fight or assist in supporting operations, and that could cause all sorts of problems if NATO was more...I guess co-dependent is the closest term.
@@MM22966 , fair.
Did I mis-hear you? Or did you miss that Canada is still NOT contributing our 2% share as promised to NATO? Despite all the bull$hit from our gifted orators (Federal politicians), it shames me to hear that Canada's spending - on our OWN Defence industry (not counting what we could send to Ukraine) is still as low as it is. Yet we find $Bn's to waste on trite. THANK YOU FOR THIS!
On trite what? Doesn't really make sense - did you mean trivia?
Donny will sell you out if he thinks he can turn a buck doing it. So brush up on your Russian.
@@Tannhauser62 I mean we waste money on trite or trivial or political programs while we sacrifice Defence spending that could stop putin AND help ourselves And Ukraine at the same time.
@@rogerpennel1798touch grass
@@bc-guy852Canada is expected to double defense spending by 2026/27.
In the meantime, they definitely need to at least make a noticeable increase.
Well said good job
I will purchase every book of yours that you narrate and publish as an audio book!
Finland had defence budget (gdp) of 2,3% on joining NATO and 2024 allmost 5 % excpected to be 6% by end of the year.
3:26 #wheresleslie (right side foreground with white dress)… quite crafty to reverse the image! #keepitfun
White patterned skirt that is, and seated
More like "who's Leslie?"
Romania would also need some legal help from outside, seeing the level of corruption we're facing. Politicians were bragging with 2,5 just to be later discovered in was only 1,5.
Good reporting. Thank you. Go Democracy.
14:00 I was hoping you would say “but if they spent just 2% of their GDP on buying my books, then they could buy # copies of them.” 😅
I dropped the ball!
I fully support trumps words that if you don’t meet the 2% rule you shouldn’t get coverage
@11:08 yes, this is what should and will
Excellent.
2% is the superior milk
fake news
3,5% is the way
If you use 1% enough, you'll get used to it, like how I hear the swampy taste of Florida's "tap" water "should" go away if you stay there long enough.
Its glorified water
Glory to Ukraine!
Nah not glorifying a country who worships alt right nationalists that murdered thousands of poles in Poland cough* I mean western Ukraine.
Nor will I glorify the Waffen SS cosplayers Azov pests
Firefighting is a great example because it used to not be socialized. There used to be competing fire fighting organizations and they would often ignore fires they would not earn anything from.
Another Great Analysis .
Damn Finns starting fires in the embassy with their saunas.
Sir, you made my day! 😂
tbf norways 2% will be more worth than thebaltics combined and more
I wouldn't get mah hopes up.
However I digress.
Just a small correction, Croatia is also spending 2% since 2021
Opportunity missed here for an April 1st video that consists entirely of segue into book adverts.
Not RULE or “Rule” or “Rule of thumb” but “Guideline”! Que that old spider man meme!
SKIMMED MILK IS NOT REAL MILK
This!!! ❤
@@LordWalsallian
I've been trying to gain enough weight to be safe for surgery these last 2 years.
Pints and pints of whole milk played a key role!
You speak just fine man
Which PMC do I have to join to defend skim milk superiority?
In the current security picture, assistance to Ukraine is a pretty massive factor though. And in that departement, as a metric of GDP, one of the biggest NATO delinquents is the US, with an order of magnitude less than multiple other allies. Which is kinda bonkers, considering how much of that aid actually ends up in American coffers, companies and paychecks.
Except the US contributed (until the current fight in Congress) about 7 TIMES all other NATO contributions to Ukraine. I find your comments about "American coffers, companies and paychecks" disingenuous, too, since all of the contributions (not just the US ones) are structured in such a way as to give the Ukrainians gear that is mostly in storage that is already paid for, so the new money (from their own budget) goes to replace brand-new gear for their own military. Or (like arty shells) being produced & bought in-country at their own factories, THEN gets shipped to Ukraine to fight with.
@@MM22966 wtf are you on about, where are you finding those numbers and does those sites only count publicly announced aid or try to find out what is actually being sent?
USA has delivered far less aid than Europe, even if you(like I suspect you do) only look at military aid and not financial aid or other costs.
Financial aid being one of those areas where Europe outspends "USA 7 TIMES" because USA isn't willing to do anything that actually costs it money and instead focuses on delivering things that they were going to pay a lot more to get rid of than it cost to send it to Ukraine.
Whole Milk is superior, especially made into chocolate milk
Extra cream for me, thanks.
Amateurs. I've trained my palate with enough intense dark chocolate by now for me to find even semi-sweet chocolate to be nice and creamy.
thanks for the x12. I wish all videos were at this speed. I'm too easy to get board...
Air quality is interesting...it's a positive externality. You don't hear about those much.
In 2018 the Germans had 10 combat ready euro fighters out of 128. It's a
a little better for the army with 30% of their tanks combat ready. This neglect is well beyond hitting their expenditure guidelines. For example, if you don't maintain an aircraft, then you can't train pilots or keep the hours current. Pretty soon you don't have anyone to pilot what little planes you have. Pilots can't be utilized 24/7 like they are a robot, so the understaffing is magnified in a combat situation.
Both numbers are already humiliating.
10 operational
And only 128 exist in the first place.
During the cold war Germany had more than 1000 (!!!) jets. But right now even keeping 128 operational is expected to much from the German government. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Germany says a tank isn't operational if it lacks a headlight, the Russians sends fully operational tanks without gunners to Kyiv because the gun wasn't working anyway.
There is a slight amount of context lacking if you think only 10 of those 128 planes would fly combat missions successfully during a situation that demanded it.
Countries have different standards, there should be alarm bells ringing for you when you say one of the most rigid beaurocratic and known for high quality countries in the world only says 10 of 128 main combat jets aren't operational. Far more than 10 are, 10 are the number that filled every single check box of the inspector, including the checkbox for whether the cup holder folded correctly or the cockpit had the new car smell.
@@freedomfighter22222 yes you are correct and I "cherry picked" the 2018 situation to emphasize my point. However, If you have a zero defect military standard you then need the logistics to back that up. The Germans can't have it both ways and not meet their commitments because they don't want to stock excessive spares.
Source: Bild (well known toilet roll paper).
The problem with much of the media hype about Germanys hardware is a good part of it suffers from a translation issue.
1 report that has been parroted mixes German/English phrases up. Where the English 'combat ready' was used to refer to something more akin to presently active response forces which are on patrol.
The hype from that 1 report/translation flowed down and contaminated many reports thereafter.
At least thats what Ive read.
So basically be careful. Dont auto-buy the hype.
@@tedcrilly46 yes I cherry picked that story to make a point. However I suspect where there is smoke there's fire. Based on what I heard from people serving in Afgan, it is more true than not. They called ISAF, I Saw Americans Fighting.
A few counter points. The analogy of fighting fires vs. collective defense is obviously not perfect. The enemy army *might* respect political boundaries, even if a fire would not. As to dealing with free loaders, what the member nations should do is place a tariff on the imports from the free loaders, that tariff would be sent on the military of the importing nation. Said tariff would be capped at the delta between what they are supposed to spend (2% in NATOs case) and what they actually did spend. So the free loaders would have a choice, fund their own militaries at the goal or above, or fund the militaries of the countries that will defend them. My guess is that most will quickly meet the obligation.
Great solution encourage alliance members not to trade with each other, thereby reducing economic growth and weakening the alliance wait what was the goal again?
Hearing a Ron Swanson quote that early on was unexpected.
Thank-you!!
How dare you insult brussel sprouts?!
Cause.. ppl are different?
And not all like them.
@@adam.maqavoy People who don't like brussel sprouts don't qualify as people...
I reviewed the comments again and still can't get over the feeling that Trump was mashing up NATO and the UN. I suppose the end result was the same, but I don't take for granted that he knew entirely what he was referring to.
Greetings from Canada please shame us for not doing our part
2:20, KC-135 sighting!
The then Swedish minister of defence Mikael Odenberg, resigned already back in 2007, because he thought Swedish defence spending was irresponsibly low. From 2014 rebuilding Swedish military force has been going on, and is at least since the full scale invasion of Ukraine, done at the fastest practical / technical pace. (Money isn't really the limiting factor, Swedish government finances are very good, with perhaps even an unhealthy /suboptimaly low debt!)
Although I think that countries should (have) put more effort in reaching 2%, one thing annoys me to no end.
To use the gym analogy: the 2% guideline is how much the gym suggests you spend on getting fit. The membership fee is what you pay directly to the gym. To be a member you can choose to follow their guideline on spending money on getting fit, but you no choice in paying your membership fee. Or you get kicked out.
In NATO the membership fee are always paid in full but some countries fail to meet the guideline on total defense spending.
The only country, to my knowledge that failed to pay its membership fee was the USA when Trump decided on a whim that he was going to pay less and NATO had to redesign their membership fee calculations.
Yeah... Basically, this is a failure to read the Terms and Conditions of joining a Gym.
Every Nato country spends exactly what it considers it needs to to keep itself safe or to advance its own foreign policy, It's not a charge for keeping other countries safe.
The US has an expansive, far-reaching foreign policy. Hence they spend more. Greece considers themselves vulnerable to Turkey and Cyprus, hence THEY spend more.
Germany does NOT have problematic neighbours or a an expansive, interventionist foreign policy, hence it does not spend as much of its GDP.
I can't believe that you got some lines into your video again! It wouldn't be a William Spaniel video without that...
I don't recommend slowing the playback speed to x1/4 time to listen to the calculation of defense/gdp ratio. The distortion gave me a headache!
Thats actually a genius idea
The main problem in Germany is that it put austerity politics into its CONSTITUTION under Angela Merkel.
And since raising taxes is difficult, this means that any sustained increase in defence spending has to be financed with cuts elsewhere. In a situation where everything already has a massive investment shortage and the country would realistically need to raise its public debt by at least 10-20% GDP..
The whole idea of "no deficit = no interest = more money long term" is brutally failing right now. It means that many things run inefficiently and growth is slow. We lose far more money to these things than we have saved from not borrowing money. Especially because that included times pre-Covid in which interest rates were practically 0%!
Geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan (love him or hate him) predicts a Germany collapse I think before the turn of the century. Potentially for the very reasons you're outlining.
Yeah, for a short period of time PRE-COVID... but interest rates aren't fixed & what if they rise again? You could cripple your economy overnight!
Being able to borrow to cover peaks in spending is useful, but it's just not sustainable in the long-term to run a budget defecit.
it's not austerity but basic spending responsability. YOU decided to fuck over your economy with stupid green policies (closing nuclear plants for example), so now you pay for it. economic growth happens not with deficit spending but with a good underlying structure, and when you destroy your industry and energy sector no amount of debt will help you
@@davidescristofaros2241 That is extremely wishful thinking. You have to spend money to make money. Nobody’s advocating for the type of debt spending that the US follows, but not being able to go into any debt is atrocious for an economy, because it can’t react to change in a time of need or make investments that will outpace the debt in question. Germany is clearly feeling the effects of this policy rn, as it has made them unable to adapt to the large shifts in the economy seen over the past few years. While it is great to be frugal with spending, locking yourself into a no debt system is economic suicide driven only by ideology and no real common sense
This is such an economically bankrupt comment I'm sure not sure where to start.
1) The debt break that was added to the Constitution under Merkel had broad public and multi-party support. It was introduced after the Greek debt disaster, and is kind of necessary for the sake of the European Union.
2) Taking in a bunch of 0% loans from a central bank is a voodoo practice that causes inflation.
3) As another comment highlighted, random government spending is not how prosperity is formed. This is a nakedly authoritarian argument, and concerning. Germany sabotaged its own energy production due to a nuclear scare, then became dependent upon Russia for energy. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, energy prices soared. This was Germany's own doing, and has nothing to do with debt.
4) Running constant deficits, year after year, with no crisis to justify it, with no intent to reduce debt-to-GDP ratio, is utterly immoral. It simply burdens future generations with unconscionable debts.
This isn't "austerity" or whatever. It's called basic fiscal responsibility.
I love lines on maps
So part of the problem with your tritium metaphor is that the majority of the tritium that a nuclear bomb uses is not stored as tritium... It's stored as lithium. The bomb itself is a breeder reactor. When the first charge goes off, the neutrons from that split the lithium up and some of that lithium becomes tritium and then the tritium fuses with hydrogen and other things and it goes boom. And lithium has a far longer shelf life than tritium
Not a 2% rule but a guideline. Add that during peace 'those Europeans' bought lots of stuff in the US - money to the US. The US purchased goods in the US, within its own economy. Guideline (2015, Obama) points out that 2024 is the measure year. Today, 2024, those European NATO members on average are more than 2% of gdp. Russia's gdp is about that of The Netherlands and Belgium combined. Small! The ramp up could not have gone quicker: the ability in many nations for a typically static organization to grow so fast is enourmous. Compare Defense in Europe to the US: no ROTC (high ed is already almost free in Europe), no Army Corps of Engineers and many other DoD non-defense costs are not budgetted as Defense in Europe. So, you may be correct with Obama's findings, we are all in agreement and the US makes more money in this strategy - not mentioned. Europe has ramped up today - but this is against 1980s logic: armed Germany (again?), then recently new democracies of Portugal, Spain, Greece - previously military dictatorships - many did not want these nations to be too heavily armed. Trump ought to read his history.
Yeah, don't want Europe to be too armed or you will start killing each other again, and again...
My dude, NATO was formed in 1949. The problems with NATO started with Germany and other European countries deciding that the USSR fell, there would be no need for swords. It was so bad that the Germans couldn't even evacuate their own citizens out of some regional trouble in Africa about a decade ago. Germany held a readiness exercise in 2015 and soldiers didn't have rifles and machine guns so they were issued broomsticks.
Its a little more complicated than this. With the reunification came a lot of fear for Germany being the hegemon on the European continent again, both armies combined had almost a million soldiers and by far the largest land army in Europe when it comes to tanks etc. So that army had to be downsized and transformed to a more global army like the French and British which it had never been designed to be, thus no great capabilities to do anything in Africa. Today it has this capabilities (kinda) but is not an army anymore to fight large land battles. So roll backwards now (Zeitenwende). Another thing people like to overlook, and that has something to do with the hegemon thing: If Germany had spend 2% of GPD it would have outspend Russia on its own. Germanys target for decades was de-escalation with Russia, keep military spendings low (on both sides) and by all means prevent another war with them. Sure, in 2014 they should have reacted to the fact that Russia wasnt interested in de-escalation but was turning towards confrontation. But you know, saber rattling isn't always the best choice so the politics of de-escalation was kept in place. Was that right in the hindsight? No.
After the fall of the wall, germany had to integrate several millions of east germans in its economy (and politics, social services, judiciary, etc.). Including vast amount of stockpiles of soviet weapons.
Maintaining is expensive, so I get that germany, seeing that there was no immediate threat, invested in its economy rather than in their military. I'm french and I like to bash their actual military, but cut them some slack, their political system has been designed to prevent a quick and sudden rearmament
Among the "freeriders" Canada is near the top.
@@seneca983 absolutely embarrassingly inexcusably true 🇨🇦
Trump's comments might infuriate freeloaders, but the weakness of NATO is freeloading, not deviating from the traditional rhetoric.
Bro I thought my phone was messing up the audio 🤣🤣
A couple of points not covered in the video:
-The US BEGGING (because begging is what it amounted to after the diplomacy was stripped away) NATO members to raise their defense spending predates Obama and the Crimea grab. The Bush admin also raised this issue every time there was an alliance meeting, especially because America was hip deep in the War on Terror at the time. So the argument for greater individual defense spending by NATO (mainly west NATO) has been going on for at least twenty years at this point.
-When NATO countries like Germany promise more defense spending, people think it go towards more soldiers, tanks, planes, better missiles, etc. In reality a lot of the money gets dumped into what could be classified as social spending, such as additional maternity leave days for male soldiers who are fathers, higher contractor pay, adding more civilian support staff job, non-military infrastructure improvements, etc. Things that do not add directly to NATO's ability to fight. Another example is Britain and France running out of smart munitions during the Libyan civil war intervention. The US had to step in and re-supply them with its own stock halfway through. There was never a huge push afterward in London or Paris to correct that issue and buy more cruise missiles and smart bombs.
-President Trump has a long history of threatening outrageous things to start a bargaining position. He does this to give himself an advantage by scaring the other side so bad they will quickly come to a middle or favorable position in whatever Trump wants to achieve. He did this almost the first month of his presidency with Boeing, who wanted a huge amount of money for two new presidential VIP planes. Trump scared them by saying he was just going to tear up the contract to buy. Boeing lowered their price by half. He also bullied Mexico into clamping down on illegal border immigration by threatening to do things which Mexico really did not want done.
Is it a responsible way for a head of state to treat long-term allies? No. Is it a way to build trust? Also no. Is it rude, high-handed, and un-presidential? Definitely yes! But it is a way to do business, and the initial declaration of threat may have very little to do with the actual objective - in this, getting those NATO allies to pony up more money for the collective defense, and Trump was elected mainly to succeed at things at which others had failed by NOT doing things the usual way.
I would that the obvious solution to the free rider problem is a fine to make up the shortfall.
So if country is paying 1.2% of GDP, the fine would be .8% of GDP
most of the countries that don't spend 2% are not under any direct threat. So why would they not just leave NATO instead of paying a fine? Russia can't attack them without going through a NATO country first, so the country is still freeloading, but now they no longer have to help defend other NATO countries.
@@thegreatdane3627because then the entire alliance would fall apart. Just spend the 2% dude.
@@thegreatdane3627and also if you’re not spending the 2% how are you supposed to come to the defense of a nato nation?
@@baneofbanes Spain is only spending around 1% on defence. But Spain is nowhere near russia, so threatening that the US would not help them is pointless. And you can't really accuse them of freeriding, since they don't really need to be protected from anyone at the moment.
But it is still better for NATO to have Spain as a member, since the support they can provide is better than no support.
@@thegreatdane3627 yah that doesn’t change my comment dude. How can we expect you to actually contribute to the defense of the alliance if you won’t spend shit on your military? Your refusal to spend on the military has made you unreliable allies, hell you guys can’t even meet your goals for supplies to send to Ukraine. It just goes to show that Eastern Europe can’t rely on Western Europe to come to their aid if Russia attacks.
And if Spain doesn’t need NATO why still be in it? Just leave then.
I worked with NATO before and i do agree with Trump on the 2%.. it is very serious.. the amount US spend compare to the rest is complete BS
Damn almost as if they have a larger economy than literally everyone else in the alliance combined
What is going on with the german flag at 13:49?
Considering norway’s gdp is significantly higher than the other countries bordering russia, norway is actually spending way more total money than the ones who are above 2% other than poland
While I think the other countries should pull their weight, I don’t think Trump should talk about encouraging other countries to invade.
He talks like a businessman. If they don't pay, then what's the point?
@unreal4010 He acts more like a grifter, though. He tries to get out of paying himself as much as he can.
He's not a great analogy to the American MIC, because we have a lot of reasons to keep our military spending high, regardless of what the rest of NATO is doing.
@@unreal4010 he talks like a fool who doesnt even understand how the alliance works and it is dangerous and damaging.
@unreal4010 Businessmen understand the topic. Watch the video again.
Failed businessmen should never lecture on how to conduct buisness....the orange mess needs to learn to hold his tongue
do a video on how canada can take over the world please first
With Terrance and Phillip?
Emutopia will take over the world first. If Kiwiland can't stop them, that is. 😄
I would be among the first to welcome our new Hosehead Overlords, eh.
Hey! What's wrong with Brussel sprouts?
❤
Something I never see mentioned or discussed when it comes to this "spending" thing is the fact that the US does not spend all of it's military on NATO. In fact, the majority of America's military spending is outside of NATO, such as in Asia, a trend that will continue for years to come. In contrast, almost all European countries military spending is mostly or exclusively deployed in Europe. It's not a reasonable comparison.
In short... does the US actually spending 2% of its GDP on NATO/defending Europe? Almost certainly not.
Almost all of those assets are mobile. Yes, they're not in Europe at this moment but if there was a major war with Russia they could all theoretically get there. Plus remember russia has a pacific coast too.
Logic fails... Not everything the other members spend stays in Europe either.
@@TheFireGiver The US can't suddenly shift its entire military to Europe in the event of a war with Russia, since it needs to be present in Asia to deter China. And we aren't talking about in the event of a war, we're talking about things now, since its the way things are now that Americans never stop bitching about. In a war, everything would change.
Most of the US military could be relocated to Europe very quickly in a crisis. This isn't a valid point.
@@TheFireGiver Ummm, you mean you can sail the carrier ships up the Rhine and Danube to engage the Russian army? And move all the US military bases around the world to Europe? And leave Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan etc at the mercy of China? And abandon USA's interests in the Middle East? (That last one might acutally be a good idea in many ways but not something the movers and shakers in USA would fancy.)
(To clarify my first point: even if we excluded USA NATO's air and naval powers would be so much stronger than Russia's it's not even funny. So it's all about land power.)
(Edit: Don't get me wrong. The reinforcements USA could provide in a potential armed conflict in Europe would be very valuable and welcome. But saying that most of the US military forces could be deployed to Europe is a huge exaggeration.)
8:43 I'm honestly a bit disappointed that you missed the opportunity to use Hector Barbossa's face here...
Percent of GDP spent isn’t always the only reason for strategic value as well other factors like location, geography, resources and energy are just a few.
There is a little wrinkle - The US promised to protect its allies so they didn’t feel the need to develop their own nuclear weapons. It wasn’t just being a good ally that was driving the US domination of military matters in NATO. And that’s not considering how the US prefers to be the one calling the shots, protects world markets and trading routes for its own economy and has just built up a massive military industrial complex that gives the appearance of being too big to reduce. So saying NATO countries aren’t paying their way is overly simplistic. And if NATO countries feel that the US promise of protection is contingent, producing their own nukes is an obvious step. And surprisingly easy. Don’t care about proliferation?
How about a far right/far left takeover of an ‘ex’ NATO country that can now truly throw its weight around because it had nukes? Or if the country goes feral, sell those nukes? Proliferation has been avoided for very good reasons.