Brit here who spent 22 years in the uk armed forces and now works in the private security sector. Just want to add that yes, the UK does spend 2.3 % but that really doesn’t mean it’s spent well and in the right places.
@@dan7564the benefit of a very solid and efficient military purchasing system. The opposite of say, Germany, who have one of the least efficient. The Uk comes somewhere in the middle in my modest opinion. Should really add through that please don’t take my comment as a criticism of NATO itself, it’s far from a paper tiger. I remember being on joint exercises in the past that always surprised during stress testing, and all members bring something to the table. It’s just a symptom of the current world that NATO has to lean heavily on the US, and despite the stupid comments that come from some of the “twitter republicans” that show a complete lack of understanding of foreign policy the US actually needs and understands the need for them to be the solid foundation of NATO. A major European war would be terrible for them.
@@UncleJoeJoeso true , I’m a Brit and I am yes quite pissed off at our current military more on numbers of ships, combat aircraft , tanks and actual personnel we aren’t just completely terrible, still one of if not the best trained in the world and we are unless labour gets in ever increasing this ability,
I am sorry but that goes for the whole eastern europe...if you ask what are we preparing for? History to repeat itself...we dont want to have our countries,languages and cultures destroyed again
As a member of a Canadian military family I am furious by our leadership's failure to take security seriously. Not just Nato, but our arctic is constantly ignored at budget time.
They know America would just come save them. Basically most NATO countries in a nutshell. "Why should I waste my money on my military when America will come bail me out?" Then they proceed to shit on America for all sorts of other topics and issues. Biting the hand that feeds them.
@@Dusty338 It was a fun little border dispute between the countries, both having claims on it, but when Russia started getting aggressive they decided that it would be better to have no border disputes within nato. We lost a third of a rock that we never really owned fully. Hardly giving away sovereign territory.
As a Canadian who is proud of my country’s history of defending freedom, I am embarrassed by the lack of support for NATO - and I can only point out that this stupid policy has a long history under politicians of right AND left.
💯 correct fellow Canuk. Regrettably, you are 💯 correct. Many of us are ashamed of our government's lack of support in our CAF and NATO. Our military members deserve more.
@@North-of-the-49th Well, when we don't have enough houses or enough food, spending money on foreign wars, seems a little frivolous. I'd support pulling out of NATO; being able to tell other countries how they need to govern themselves is a luxury we can't afford. Defending a country that isn't part of NATO and supporting its offensive claim on territory that does not want to be part of it, is not something I think we should be spending money on. Crimea has repeatedly voted and acted in a way totally consistent with not wanting to be part of Ukraine. They have very few Ukrainians there,
I feel like many people are missing the point of the 2% spending. The point is everyone according to their own economy's pay 2% of what they make for their OWN security. It's like asking Elon to pay 2% for guns for his own security and you need to spend 2% for for guns for your security. So long as everyone is making efforts to protect themselves everyone will go out of their way to defend each other. So almost like a neighborhood watch. The rich guy spends 2% of his budget for guns and has a mini gun. You, a broke lad, spends 2% of your budget and get a handgun. Therefore everyone is doing their part to have defences for themselves and will come to the aid of one another. If you get attacked minigun is coming to your aid. If minigun gets attacked you are going to help him with your handgun. No one is to have a free hand out of Security. "I will help you defend yourself, not be your meat shield for you" concept.
Except the "neighbourghood watch" only cares about musk s interest in the end, and not the poor guy s ones... So why chip in in something that doesn t benefits most of us?
It only takes an extremely basic understanding of math to come to this conclusion... super messed up people don't understand it. However, due to the bad reporting and misleading language, I can see why so many can misunderstand it.
As a Canadian I am disappointed and disgusted in our lack of military upkeep. It's been on a long going slow decline in my opinion since 1959. No party in Canada in at least the last 24 years has been pledging to spend large sums of money to upgrade our equipment or increase stocks. So as a Canadian I can only apologize and hope that the next dimwit that gets elected is better. Though I highly doubt it.
I don’t know anything about the Canadian military but I just came from a NATO exercise and we were jealous of the Canadian equipment we saw. My unit is a reserve unit and our trucks are old and we couldn’t properly equip them for the conditions we were going to but the Canadian’s had some really nice shit.
Canadian here too. Equally disappointed by our military spending. I have the same hopes that our leaders will get their act together and seriously rebuild our military.
@@obviouslyadudeWe made you, gave you freedom and now we prop the US up politically. In exchange the us send people to die and europe chill. The world gets no more world wars as the US unlike europe are scared of fighting large scale wars. Its a win for everyone, the us gov unlike its civvies understand this.
@@jjx9316That would be the worst decision for the US. See the US is very very power hungry and atm with NATO it has all the power and reach it could ever politically and militarily want. Also in a war without a bunch of allies whether small or big ur kinda fucked, don't get me wrong the US has allies but literately a country with just 5K troops backing you up even when they don't really like you and wouldn't send troops normally but are alliance bound to do so is a big win or lose difference
@@johniscoming2239 only Democrats in the US want endless war because the DNC needs campaign contributions from companies like Raytheon, Northrop, BAE etc. Most Americans on the right don't want to send our money or weapons to anyone.
As a Canadian, I am totally disgusted with our Federal government for continually spending an inadequate amount on its military, this regardless of the party in power. Besides NATO, as was mentioned in this video, Canada should also be concerned with encroachment on its Northern borders. A total embarrassment! PM Trudeau and Mr. Poilievre ARE YOU LISTENING.
@SSN515 Our politicians (liberals AND conservatives) are complacent and feel that Canada can continue to ride on America's military coat tails. Most Canadians support our Canadian Armed Forces and want to see increases to the National Defense budget. We are ashamed...
Aye it took long enough too for us to get here, but at least they did recognise that we were dragging our heels and needed to up it. The better news is that they have said that 2.0% is not enough for Danish defence spending and they are planning to up it even further, meaning its not just a political move to do the bare minimum.
Canadian here. I'm even left wing. This analysis is bang on. I was waiting the whole video waiting for the slagging we deserve. I especially appreciate the mentioning of how stupid it is that this is being ignored while strategic waterways are opening up for year-round traversal without any shift in spending to secure our sovereign territory
Don't be ignorant to our exceptional defensive geography. Pacific Ocean and the Rocky Mountains in the west. Atlantic Ocean and Canadian Shield in the east. Inhospitable north for the majority of the year and the Arctic Ocean. Not to mention NORAD and our proximity to the best military in the world. That said, I think the best place for defensive spending is on new nuclear submarines and a full-scale domestic drone program.
@@Stemsoup It's not about defending ourselves. Our protection is basically guaranteed by the US as even if the US hated us, they HAVE to protect us from invasion as any conquest of Canada leaves the US northern border open to military invasion by whoever conquers Canada. Thus, Canada will be defended as aggressively as US soil would by the Americans. It's about Canada's ability to contribute meaningfully to defend our ALLIES.. not ourselves. As it stands if our allies are attacked, we can at best offer an utterly dismal and laughable pittance of military power to protect our friends. This is in sharp contrast to WWI and WWII where Canadians made a monumental contribution in fighting men to both wars to defend Europe from German aggression. Our modern military today couldn't even offer a fraction of the amount of fighting forces we did over a century ago, despite our now vastly larger population.
@@seanlander9321Your suggestion is absurd. It will never happen, nobody will ever invade Canada so long as the US exists. The US will never allow their northern border to be invaded by a foreign power, opening them up to invasion. The US would defend Canada as if it were US soil, not because they care about Canada but because it would have to for their own protection against a ground invasion from the north by whoever took Canada. That said, any talk of "invasion" of North America is childish and idiotic, it will never happen, it would result in nuclear war just as nuclear war would break out if NATO forces ever set foot inside of Russian borders. Canada doesn't "need" Europe for defense of it's mainland, but it does for it's trade routes on water. It's homeland is guaranteed safe by US' nuclear arsenal and conventional might. Europe, through NATO will defend Canada's trade routes if they are threatened for the same reason Canada would do the same - 1) The damage done to reputation to fail to come to an ally you are sworn to aid would take generations to repair 2) Self interest. Canada is a large trading partner for many members of the EU, losing access to Canadian resources would be very damaging to their economies, just as would losing access to the EU market be damaging to the Canadian economy.
AFAIC, it's treason. We're on the cusp of war. And this fecal stain in the PM's office has declared us defenseless. Lets not pretend we aren't. Our military is tiny. With outdated and obsolete gear. And even the modern gear is irrelevant for one single, critical reason. We have exactly THREE DAYS WORTH OF EXPENDIBLE AMMUNITIONS in stockpile. THREE. DAYS.
It should be noted while its bad many are not spending 2% percent, but in reality if they were not in NATO in the first place they would be spending much less. So a nation spending 1% or 1.5% would be spending 0.2% like what Ireland spends. It should also be noted that NATO spending is not just money thrown into a pot. every country spends on their own military, and every single country country spending more than the 2% due so for their geopolical aims, and very obvious what those are to. Like greece for example spends so much on military because turkey is always threatening to annex their islands. It was not for turkey they would not be meeting the 2%.
@@AL-lh2htGreece is in the Balcans so even if Turky BS was not here still will invest at Defence, Balcans are the Pandora Box of the EU and well every one claim terretory and History of others even the names twisted reality not to mention you say Turky Claim Greek Islands seems to me you should think why Greece got them and loose Half Albania with have Greek population and still they got opressed there because Albania was Italys puppet nation.
@@godfriedakuesson1614 Norway is also a special case... kind of. It did spend 2.01% of GDP in 2020 ($7.27B). However, as the European markets transitioned from Russian oil and gas to Norwegian fossil products the Norwegian economy experienced immense growth no politician could have anticipated. Norway increased defense spending by more than $1B from 2020 to 2023 to $9.08B to continue meeting the guideline, but because of the economic growth this only amounted to 1.67%. Had Norway refused to replace oil and gas from Russia and spent the current defense budget for the country, it would now be spending 2.5% of GDP
As a Brit, I recommend all interested in defense spending to watch Perun's videos on each nations military procurement. He shows how France is able to project power, maintain an independent military and have a nuclear arsenal while spending less of their gdp than the UK. He also paints quite a bleak picture of Germanys cash injection and how poorly it could be managed.
The UK is really innovative but they so rarely follow through with their defense plans - it’s like every ten years they do another paper - cancel a bunch of stuff and change direction - the Queen Rlizabeth class carriers is an example- why the hell would you build a big deck carrier without arresting gear and catapults limiting your fixed winged aircraft to the F-35b which is really good now, but will it still be formidable in a couple of decades - then what will the UK replace it with - I’ll tell you what they will do - they will scrap the ships like they did the Invincible class
@@jdluntjr76226 It is a tough thing to do, guess the future in military stuffs, especially with politics butting in. I doubt the power/propulsion system can support electromagnet catapults currently (if you pardon the pun). However, not having arresting gear is pretty shocking, I hope they have the 'traditional' emergency barrier type stuff still. I've not looked into the workings of the vessels, it does sound short-sighted though. Oh well, China might get a new casino /o\
We occupied a large part of Russia but it was so icky (as are their population) that we just left. Sweden stands with Poland on this, Polens sak är vår.
Russia has been invaded by The West five times in the past 220 years. I may be wrong, but I think the Russians are getting annoyed about that. Napoleon tried to burn Moscow down, The Germans allowed Lenin to cross into Russia and bring about a Communist revolution, then 27 years later raped and murdered 26 million Russians. And people wonder why Putin is cross!!
As a 5th generation Canadian, with grandparents and great grandparents that have fought in the great wars, I am embarrassed that our country has neglected our military so much to make it ineffective. Great video Simon, shame Canada's politicians have made us so ... derelict. Sorry world, Canada isn't back yet.
I was gonna say, really surprisingly given Canada's traditionally ready and willing to engage in foreign wars to protect freedom and sovereignty. Canada used to have a formidable military. Hope to see your government pull their heads out of their asses.
@@TheSickjits I mean, despite the fact that I also agree as a Canadian, I don't see it happening. Domestic politics already complains heavily about taxes. The Conservatives (the current Liberal government's main opponent) are running on lowering taxes which is incompatible with increased military spending. I'm sure they'd argue otherwise but that's not how math works.
I agree. But it must be said that Canada had even less standing military forces immediately prior to both of the great wars than it has now. Our ancestors were every bit as disinterested in maintaining peacetime militaries as we are today.
The only way the Conservatives can raise military budget after slashing taxes is by slashing other social security programs that helps people in need. Money has to come from somewhere and nothing is free. Or they might stealthily raise taxes after publicly slashing taxes like Reagan did just to keep up military spending.
Being a citizen of a notorious (although un-mentioned) budget slacker, I am pleased, that Denmark is now planning to spend 2.02% of our projected 2024 BNP on defense in that same year.
@@mortenpoulsen1496 Yes, that's a big problem. Our ships have sailed patrol in the arctic for over 10 years without gun crew. More tanks? To what use, nobody to drive them. The only thing we have plenty of, is high ranking officers, who are commanding paper units. I have a sneaky feeling, that is much worse in Italy. The Italian demographic is very bad.
@@blackoak4978unfortinatly the rest of the alliance might not have the time to wait for Canada to work it up and might suffer for it... The faster we can act as a strong alliance the less destruction and losses there will be for al.
In the past smaller nation brings tributes for their protector, now bigger nations are just too nice to ask that of their protectorate. Maybe that needs to be implemented in terms of economic pressure or tariffs.
It should be noted while its bad many are not spending 2% percent, but in reality if they were not in NATO in the first place they would be spending much less. So a nation spending 1% or 1.5% would be spending 0.2% like what Ireland spends. It should also be noted that NATO spending is not just money thrown into a pot. every country spends on their own military, and every single country country spending more than the 2% due so for their geopolical aims, and very obvious what those are to. Like greece for example spends so much on military because turkey is always threatening to annex their islands. It was not for turkey they would not be meeting the 2%.
What you Canadians think about NATO, US, EU and Security in Europe and at home? I mean, France Emmanuel Macron push for EU Army instead of NATO, which may not include UK, Turkey and other NATO countries (who are not part of EU), but may include Armenia, Georgia and Ukraine, which is why Macron lately made comments where he called western leaders to not be cowards in terms of help to Ukraine, but in case if Macron EU Army devour current NATO troops in EU, that would leave Canada, UK, Turkey and few other states in some kind of limbo without any security alliance
As an American, all I ask is you try to vote out the guy on top. We have great respect and appreciation for our Canadians, and appreciation that a lot of money is spent on universal health care, something we don’t worry about. Having said that, it feels the people on top and potentially in the nation are complicit with relying on us militarily while also mocking us for where we struggle socially. No one person’s fault, but all I can ask of one person in a comment section is to try.
@@ness6099 Trudeau will lose this next election and Conservatives will be in. They support our military a bit more. Hopefully they show us by getting it to 2% this fall after the election
@@PNETriffid I googled. Spain military spending/defense budget for 2021 was $19.54B, a 12.12% increase from 2020. Spain military spending/defense budget for 2020 was $17.43B, a 1.41% increase from 2019. Spain military spending/defense budget for 2019 was $17.19B, a 3.56% decline from 2018. source: Macrotrends
One point you missed. Military spending is self reported, and nations count their spending differently. When years ago, obama scolded the brits because they didn't spend enough, they went from 1.7% to 2.1% by adding pensions in the counting. That is why SIPRI is usefull, as they have a common method of calculation.
The funny part is that USA also counts pensions as military spending, the UK changed to count it the same way as USA, proving that it had already been spending 2% according to US standards.
@@freedomfighter22222Which is why a standard measure is needed, with or without pension to calculate how much is going on the military. I suspect many countries are using other tricks to inflate the numbers.
Iceland is, by treaty, mandated to have no armed forces. Their contribution instead is the use of their island by NATO for basing and other logistics support.
Its geographical position in the North Atlantic does make it uniquely valuable strategically, so this seems like a reasonable deal given their entire population is something like just 350,000 - which is similar to the population of the London borough I live in.
@@fuseblower8128 Yeah I've been to Iceland a couple of times and heard the Icelandic take on this. Apparently the British army using Iceland as a base back then is known as "The Situation" in Icelandic history and the Icelandic men at the time resented it more than the women did because a lot of Icelandic ladies preferred the British soldiers to the local boys. 🤣
@@russetmantle1 😂😂😂 right... you really think women used to tall, blonde, bearded men with historic good hygiene would fancy little dorks with historic bad hygiene? This is hilarious 😂😂😂
@@russetmantle1 Close. The British actually only occupied the country from 1940-1941 and the defense of the country was handed over to the US. Icelandic women preferred American soldiers over Icelandic dudes.
Norway is also a unique scenario, it was at 1.9%+ spending in 2020 and has since increased spending, the reason it today is at a lower percentage of gdp isn't a lack of will to invest in its military it is because the gdp has increased at a ridiculous rate. Had Norways income from natural gas not gone up so much since 2021 its military spending would be well above 2%.
@freedomfighter22222 I would like to "chime" in here with some more info on Norway. The oil and gas money can not be used in Norway. It goes into the Norwegian Pension Fund that only invests abroad (So we dont get inflation, we do however use 3% of the profits in that year tho). So while the nation gets an artificial high GDP from oil and gas, the revenue from these companies dont go into the government for spending, it goes to the fund. So when these "booms" from energy happens, the state has to effectively tax the population even more to reach the 2% for military. Like it was said in the video, micronations with high GDP like Luxembourg spend more per capita. I would argue that its the same for Norway with its 5,5mil people and big country that uses alot of money to patrol the seas of the world's second longest coastline. There is alot of infrastructure to maintain in rugged cold conditions, you need hospitals and roads to every corner and fjord. Building bridges/roads costs alot for such a small population. On top of that, we use roughly 325% more electricity per capita than that of Germany. Food security is expensive and heavily subsidised because there is so little farmland to operate on. So there really is not much more money to milk out of the taxpayer. BUT, there is so much bullshit we use money on, the 4 billion Euros we spend each year (from taxpayers) in aid is ridiculous. We get reports all the time that after giving money some african dictator buys a new private Jet. We use billions on the poorest EU countries, 3.8 billion Euros goes into the EU (Most to Poland), every year until 2028 that equals the tax 42.000 Norwegians pay. We have 1mil people in public sector, 1mil pensioners, almost 1mil foreigners (many that dont work), kids and alot of sick people (because you can live of a disability in Norway). So in total, a 2% military spending on an inflated GDP would kill of the middle class in Norway, unless we drastically cut spending on aid abroad, and instead of using the oil money in other countries (Stocks/energy/infrastructure), use it for military needs (Buy jets and tanks from the US, that way the money cant cause inflation in Norway). I think our GDP is on par with Sweden. But Sweden has almost 2x the population. So for us to use 2% would be the same as Sweden using 4%, or is my thinking wrong here? (Reflecting on the point in the video of US and its nr1 status on GDP and Germany with its 2% being more than the entire GDP of Estonia)
@@tcn9939couldn't you use the fund to invest as aid,it is after all, oberseas. Many nefarious banks lend money at humongous rates because nobody else will lend these countries money. This would have 3 good effects. 1) this would allow you to cut your aid spending(which comes from your internal spending) 2)even undercutting the vampire bankers, this would still be extremely profitable. 3)cutting rates would really help in countries where every penny counts. 4)rates doesn't have to be as high as the risk, Norway could offer even lower rates as "aid" and still break even, (see point 1)
@@tcn9939while it would be waay fairer to make the numbers for gdp/capita in many ways, it makes sense in some others. It is still VERY unlikely that anyone would attack Norway, but it would be a WAY more profitable target to attack than some other nations. You probably guessed it -> natural resources If Finnland or basically any other nation close to Russia would have the natural resources of Norway, I can promise you that there would be not a war in Ukraine now, but rather in this country 😉
As a former Canadian infantryman who spent a month in Norway exercising near the Russian border, you know, in the middle of winter, above the Arctic circle... I can attest that Norway takes its defence spending and military very seriously. Norwegians actually know what they're doing and they have tremendous capabilities. So, that whole 2% of GDP number is so bogus, if you ask me. The only countries who look really good are the ones who have a sucky economy, low growth, stagnant population or who use their military budget to pay for all sorts of non-military stuff.
As a french, I was surprised to hear that we crossed the threshold this year. Yes we have a sizable military force. Yes we can project - and we do project - our force far better and in places no other NATO member can, except the USA. Yes we have a very modern - and totally independent - nuclear arsenal, hence a credible nuclear deterrent. And finally yes we have an efficient military industry. But we have stretched all these assets to the limits and often beyond it. I spent my youth believing that the world could end at any moment’s notice in a bright nuclear flash. I don’t want the new generations to fear the same outcome. France has in its past paid the price of military complacency. It would be great not to learn the lesson the hard way again.
As a Canadian, reading other "Canadians" like you crying about not spending to 2% are ignorant to our exceptional defensive geography. Pacific Ocean and the Rocky Mountains in the west. Atlantic Ocean and Canadian Shield in the east. Inhospitable north for the majority of the year and the Arctic Ocean. Not to mention NORAD and our proximity to the best military in the world. That said, I think the best place for defensive spending is on new nuclear submarines and a full-scale domestic drone program.
@@Stemsoup Yeah put Canadian in quotes cause I can’t be a real Canadian if I criticize my government for not doing something they committed to our allies ten years ago? It’s also funny you talk about our proximity to the best military in the world because that’s the mindset this video was actually talking about how we take for granted the protection of the United States. You should do a little more research pal.
@@traestormHe does have a point, military spending is all based on risk to one country, the risk to Canada and many EU countries is quite small, hence the lower military spending. The US on the other hand wants to project power around the world, it uses military bases as a form of doing so, it's also got to contend with China, which by the way, is far bigger of a problem for the US then it is for other, being as China wants to take the number one spot in the world away from the US, that puts far more pressure on the US then it does on others. As for the Europeans, part of boosting military spending is because of Putin warmongering, but if you ask a lot of Europeans, especially in the western part, they see the US as becoming more unstable, polarise and less trustworthy, so basically, Trump and Putin are doing wonders for the EU, but not for the reasons many think. Russia is more of a risk to eastern European countries that are not in the EU or NATO, but Russia isn't really a risk to EU or NATO members, countries that are not in the EU or NATO are usually far poorest and a much easier target, EU and NATO countries both have a defence clause that an attack on one is an attack on all, so the risk to them is quite remote, but I understand why there's more panic in eastern EU countries, they were after all behind the iron curtain decades ago, but it's understandable with them, but for western countries, Russia isn't really seen as much of a threat to them, the US on the other hand, especial a Trump US is being seen as a far bigger threat. So this isn't about European countries pulling their weight, this is more about an unstable, erratic US that's reshaping minds in Europe, as for what that will do to transatlantic relations, it's too early to say, but I do know one thing, the US is likely going to need a strong EU to contain China long term, the problem for the US is that they want European countries to spend more but as individual countries, not as a single EU entity, as that would be far more powerful than what any of the EU members can offer on their own, it would also compete more directly with the US in many areas, especially arms sales, which could force the US to either have to spend more or to cut the military budget if the EU is taking a slice of arms sales around the world, probably why the EU is focusing on arms production first, it basically boils down to a lack of trust in the US from a lot of Europeans, and if Trump were to get into power, that would be the icing on the cake the EU needs. From a geopolitical sense, both the EU and US really need to stand together because of a rising China, because overall, we are not that different, but a Trump president would likely wreak any of that from happening, it could even get to the point of that NATO could fall apart if Trump had his way, which again would fall in line with pushing what the EU wants, after all public views are gaining traction of more EU military and forign policy matters thanks to Trump and Putin.
Countries today have this so-called 'image' to care for. There are no more Ministers of War and Ministers of Propaganda, like in the old days. The last time the US defended their teritory was in 1941, in Guam and Wake Islands. Since then the D.O.D. or the Departament of Defense spent about 50 trillions dollars, and never defended (unless you consider a good offense is the best defense)
Excellent (mini) documentary and I certainly feel a lot less ignorant of the specifics involved than I did before watching this! Very interesting and nice to have the facts presented with some humour too. Very educational, thanks for that!
The trouble is, in relatively pacifist democratic systems, being able to persuade the population not to vote for the other party if you spend more of their money on something they fail to understand why they need.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 "the other party" is a sign of the democratic sickness called the two-party system. But yes, in relatively pacifist democratic nations, it is hard to persuade voters on military spending. I believe this is a good thing, though. Nondemocracies are more likely to revere dominating others in general, and we see them aching more for war and conquest. Building up arms can be seen as a threat by others, which can spiral out of control. And there should be at least some pacifist forces in the world. We can't afford having wars every few decades forever. It is good to be seen not to be constantly aching for war.
I mean Trudeau and his government are not known for foresightedness, so it doesn't surprise me. He probably think realism is some sort of far-right evil
In Canada we really seem to have the attitude that "oh we'll never need to fight seriously ever again". Especially in my own family where its we are too poor, not enough people or the Americans will do it for us.
Has there been a time when there would be no good reason for Germany to spend more on the military? Not in the last couple of decades atleast -2014 Russia invaded Ukraine, but pretended like they didn't -2008 Russia invaded Georgia -War on Terror and European countries helping out America with this quest
As a Canadian... its us. Yes, we are always willing to help out (some others don't, that's for sure), but our actual budget is just sad. My guess is everyone else would be happy if we simply spent enough to secure our own arctic.
Do you think a change in PM would make a difference? As an American it seems like JT is very weak, but perhaps it was the same under Harper etc. genuinely curious.
Finnish chief of defense forces says that 2% of GDP is not enough for Europeans (and I think Canada should be included in that), he says that they should spend more than that because 2% was for peace time spending but we are now in a different world than what it was when that 2% of GDP was decided.
@jk8557 , look what they did to the people in Irak. You said: "They will not exist anymore" That is what you fear. They who has the power over you, they can read everything you write, they can block your bank account, they can get you fired, they control the mass media, they can remove you from internet, they can eliminate you like they did to Assange, Seth rich, Snowden and Gonzalo lira. You prefer to join them and you hope that they will save you. It is called the Stockholms syndrome.
@@jk8557 You'd be surprised what that would do to the rest of the country. See America's healthcare and education for comparison and they only spend 3.4%.
I know Australia isn’t in nato, but in 22/23 we spent 2.11% on Defence which was about 48billion. Here in 23/24 financial it’s slipped to 2.04% but actually increased to $53billion almost a billion of which is being spent on a loyal wingman program that will pay dividends because most of our allies have either expressed interest or outright purchased the MQ28 ghost bat. I believe America jumped so hard at the development that even Australia and all americas currently purchasing allies wont have as many as the American.
@@diego5079 Thanks for doing the good work. Unfortunately, I think many channels decide against it b/c it apparently hurts viewing retention, which is important for ad revenue. :(
If it cuts down revenue, then good. Eight and a half minutes of ramblings is bad. The guy (Simon Whistler) couldn't summarize a PB&J sandwich in under three minutes.
I would like to point out at that at the time of German reunification when the east and west German armies merged, Germanys standing military was somewhere 1 million personnel+ and France and Great Britain were absolutely terrified and wouldn’t agree to reunification without significant decreases in German military capability, this is to some extant the inevitable outcome to that
Thats simply not true. Thatcher was against reunification of Germany in the form as it stood, because it was deemed too much, too soon, much the same way that if ever the two Korea's unite, the plan would take decades. As it turned out, Germany is still battling with regional debt that can trace its way back to the late 90s where Berlin declared bankruptcy literally dozens of times. Also, look at the cultural differences between east and west Germany. Start off by looking at their voting intentions. The country is split in 2.
1990. I remember this. U.S. newspapers, even my own parents, were very concerned what a reunified Germany would do. Dammit, they got us into two world wars. The European Union had as a primary concern to tie German interests to ALL European countries, so they'd be shooting themselves in the foot to start WW III.
Considering that most of the Geneva Convention only exists because of acts Canadian soldiers committed. Canada not going overboard with its military is not such a bad thing.
@user-qj3rk4tu5p a "veteran" is anyone who served in their countries Armed Forces. Yes, some Veterans were serving during less demanding times for their particular country, but (God Damn It!) they served! I, for one, served in the US Navy from 1987 to 2011. Never did I, or any of the ships I was stationed on, fire a weapon in "anger"... I jokingly say: " For 23 years, I effectively evaded all Combat Situations". Am I not a Veteran?
its so soothing to watch this channel. the amount of well researched and awesomely produced vids you are pumping out almost daily puts billion dollar media outlets to shame
The U.S. didn't enact Article V after 9-11. The other NATO allies did. This is important to note that it wasn't the U.S. coming to the aid of Europe, as one might assume would happen, it Europe coming to the aid of the U.S.
@@clintoncarroll3400 When people say that the US invoked Article 5, I'm pretty sure that they mean that the US communicated that it had been attacked in a way that meets the criteria for collective defense mentioned in Article 5 (and subsequently the North Atlantic Council agreed).
@@seneca983 the motion was brought to the NAC by the SecGen. It’s fine margins but I just wanted to make a clarification that the US did not invoke it and drag NATO into something, that’s all I was saying.
@@clintoncarroll3400not all members were engaged in Afghanistan either. German constitution prevented sending offensive forces outside its borders. They send support troops instead.
To be fair on Luxembourg we are forming a new regiment and buying our first ever tanks, with a plan to reach 2%. The new regiment is joint with Belgium, so their stats should improve a bit too with this.
i've once heard belgium described like "a place where europeans, especially france and germany, could go to settle their differences." it's crazy how short some nations' memory is.
I don't think Germany and France is going to go settle any differences in the near future. Saying Belgium should have a strong military to defend itself against Germany and France is idiotic.
@@pennymayphilip9646 was that really Belgium's lesson? Would a 2% GDP military in Belgium have been the thing that stopped the Nazis? Or was the leason side with Germany next time?
A lot of Americans think of Europe as lazy dullards that depend on America for defense but also feel it's their right to criticize our methods and life style. Most Americans tune out Euro criticism. But it's very heart warming to see European countries not willing to let America have all the fun. We couldn't be more proud to call those nations allies or friends.
It's nothing to do with being lazy, it just that since the end of the Cold War, there's not really been any threat to European countries, especially western ones, the US on the other hand constantly sees threats all over the world, mainly China now, so they have to keep spending to project it's interest around the world. Europeans on the other hand don't, but there is a divide, western European countries don't see Putin as a threat, whereas eastern Europeans do, a lot of the change that's going on in western EU countries is actually more to do with the US then it has with Russia, specifically, Trump, not Putin, so Putin got the ball rolling but most in the western European countries are more concerned with Trump, that's focusing minds, public views are changing as well as political views, Trump is also playing into the hands of what the EU wants, a single EU military, starting with arms production. A single military would be a lot stronger than 27 individual ones, it would also cut out a lot of waste and duplications, there are good and bad points for the US on that, an EU military would be a lot stronger than any of the EU countries ones, it would give them a far bigger say on forign policy matters, the arms industry would very likely compete with the US arms industry on selling arms, so taking a slice away from US arms which could make US military spending even higher or that they might have to reduce spending, but on the plus side, as long as the EU and US are on friendly terms, they would be far more effective in containing China, but ultimately, an EU military would be a big win for Europeans, they wouldn't need to listen to the US, they can do their own thing, even if it's not in the interest of the US, and it would allow countries that want options around the world to choose sides or keep their options open, where now, the US is the only real option, there could in time be 2 credible options, that could reshape the world's geopolitical landscape in ways we can't see for now. With that said, the EU and US are not that different from each other, so it's unlikely they would turn on each other and will likely be allies, but Europeans will likely not listen to the US as much in many areas and very likely not to do US bidding, which could be costly for the US as that would weaken US voice in Europe, whiles the EU offers the world an alternative voice, which I suspect a lot of countries around the world will find attractive. But on the plus side for the US, it does mean they don't have to share the burden as much around the world and could spend less on its military, but it will also weaken US power around the world, there are trade-offs across all this. In any case, another strong democracy can only be a good thing for the world with how unstable parts of the world are getting with the likes of Russia, China and what's going on in the Middle East, Africa.
A Europe that does not rely on America to come to its defense will be a stronger and more unified Europe. Trump being elected in 2016 has shattered any notion that the US can ever be relied on again as a stable ally as they would probably reneg on any sort of defensive alliance if they determine that not keeping their promise is more beneficial to them. And with Russia’s initial failing in the Ukraine invasion, other countries should also be thinking about if the US is in a similar situation. That for all their posturing about military might, they’re really just a paper tiger.
@RetroRadianceLight it's hard to tell even for us until we get tested by a major enemy. It would be wise not to rely on us entirely, as we will likely be extremely busy all over the world if nato goes to war
I disagree. Why is anyone going to attack you? The world would go after them if they did, due to the soft power you have from a lack of military. NZ has a similar strategy
As a Canadian I am utterly embarrassed of our military spend and the current state of our armed forces. It's imperative that we take action, regardless of the impact it may have on our personal taxes. The cost of neglecting our defense could be far greater in the event of an invasion, both financially and in terms of human lives. I sincerely hope that our present or future government recognizes the importance of actively participating in NATO and the invaluable security it provides.
As a Canadian, i remember when Toronto's mayor called in the military to shovel after a snow storm. So to everyone thinking Canada's military is incapable, think again 😂
50+ years born & raised on this property here in Canada? This is THE FIRST TIME EVER, 'EVER' to have virtually No Snow this "Winter"? And all the world cares about is spending More BILLIONS on WAR?... You know we are FXXKED when☠ And for all the idiot comments that will say, YAY! NO SNOW! BE HAPPY!... I have Absolute Magical memories growing up With Winter that I would wish Every Child to be Blessed with, so STFU. Winter is Canada😇NOT American Warmongers👿 THE WORLD needs to get its Priorities Straight & Fast.
In my opinion it should be also noted that military spending is not even the only factor that when it comes to nato contribution. Some countries still have conscription and training of troops definetly is cost to economy. It's not really seen as spending, as the conscripts don't get little money for it, but they still contribute greatly to defence of the alliance.
Also the likes of Germany are spending billions (in Germanies case some 0.6% GDP) on directly helping their allies economically develop. Which in turn makes it possible for the likes of Poland, to spend big on defense. So Germany is not meeting the 2% goal, all the while making it possible for the likes of Poland to meet that 2% goal (and make the 2% actually mean something) After all a GDP percentage is only impressive, if the GDP underpinning it, is impressive. Half of Europe needed a lot of help, in making their GDP rebound. And Germany provided that help.
As a Turk I am pleasantly surprised that we'll be going over 4% next year and given the ambitious new military projects we got into and the new purchases we made, it makes sense. However I doubt the spending will go that high considering the economy is in shambles right now. I think 3% or just above 3% is realistically achievable.
@@jyy9624 before even considering import parts there's the 40 brand new F16's and 79 modernization packages that were bought from the US last month and don't forget the shit load of ammunition also bought for them. There goes my tax dollars lol
also turk, totally agree. big ambitious military development projects (like the 5th gen fighter) are great ways to spend money and keep it in the country, but it creates little short term benefit in terms of extra firepower.
Truth is, Turks can spend less to get more if its homemade. Because of purchasing power. So for drones, salary etc, its a win. Obviously, for imported weapons, its more expensive if the economy is "in shambles" as you said. As a French, i just wonder sometimes if Turks will agree to fight Russia. If they do, it will be way easier. Well i do expect that Iran will side with Russia, and Türkiye probably against Iran. What do you think ?
@@YmirLucius We are not going to fight against either Russia or Iran. Ukraine war or any possible war in Europa is not our war. We have many problems with Russia and Iran, but we can also talk with them. America and France is more threat and we can not talk with them. They only accept their own solution and such western countries are the ones who put embargo on us and militarily support our enemies. Sorry, you maybe a good man but our countries are not allies or friends.
Georgia before 2008 war used to spend almost 8% GDP on it's military, so if it was admitted back in the day, then it would've been largest spender in all of Alliance. Pre-war Ukraine used to spend 3% of it's GPD on military, now since invasion they have increased it literally tenfold with over 30% being spent on military.
I see a Warographics notification and I click. Never disappointed. 8:45 I remember that clip on Poland, I save all these in a Playlist. 18:50 "We're looking at these figures Belgium, and it's not a mistake, it's a piss take!" - Poland lol The NATO Pisstakers - appearing at Glastonbury in 2024 Singing their chart topping hit “The One Percenters”
I live in Canada, a country whose Prime Minister openly admitted, will never reach the 2% of GDP military spending threshold. If Article 5 is triggered, whoever is depending on Canada may as well raise a white flag. If meeting the 2% of GDP military spending threshold helped in vote whoring, our Prime Minister would be spending 4% of GDP. If you choose to be in an alliance it involves certain obligations and responsibilities, meet them or leave.
The problem with the 2% GDP spending is. We lack recruits to spend on. Seriously, you need men before you need gear. We have gear. (hell, we just gave the dozen or so Leopard 2 we have to Ukraine). Join the army/Navy if you are concerned about the 2% and PM. Conservatives lie by the way.
The real sad part is that there really is no political will across the board to fund the Canadian military in a meaningful way. My own mp (a conservative) told me that although funding the armed forces is important it would not be on the list of priorities for their government, further just kicking the can down the road.
@petertong572 i have been trying to join the army but they don't make it easy for someone with a family to participate! More budget will give better oportunities for training, gear etc etc
I'm so frustrated that Canada is in its current state. So many of our family has served proudly and they feel their sacrifice has been so devalued. It's time for us to do better.
It is shameful that Canada has never met the 2% GDP but spending money is not the answer, until procurement process is improved it is basically throwing money into a large deep hole, which helps no one
As a UK resident who has a fair amount of family and friends, who have served or still serve in the Armed Forces, I think our preparation for a potential conflict with Russia or China is abysmal. The munitions state is bad enough but even worse, every battalion, ship and squadron, with the exception of the Gurkha Brigade is below strength. So much so that the outgoing Chief of Staff suggested conscripting 500,000 people to fill vacancies.
While the size of the British army is the smallest it’s been in over two centuries, it is worth bearing in mind that historically Britain has always had a small ground force, mobilising the nation and drafting civilians in wartime. The Royal Navy is and has always been the prowess of the UK. That being said, the UK does need to build its ground forces if it wishes to be of any practical use in a large scale conventional conflict - such as the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
The problem is a nation of people who have forgotten that freedom always has to be paid for in blood. Our society is weak. Frankly unless entitled whining becomes a weapon I'm not sure what conscripting people will achieve. On the other hand, I'm in my mid-forties and apparently too old now. I'd rather be trained and not needed, than needed and not trained. National service would be a good thing. It never hurts to be prepared. Also I think making the possibility of war 'real' for the youth might help them with self discipline and priorities.
The Sunak Government won't spend more until the Armed Forces start proving they will spend it wisely. How many procurements have been on-budget and on-time? Too many suits, not enough boots. Need to copy Poland's procurement model. Also, with an election due, military spending doesn't win votes compared to Healthcare...
@@Whoami691 Yeah get people to do the fighting for you whilst you sit on your arse spouting nonsense. Immigrants already harvest your food and do the dirty jobs Brits won't do and will pay for your pension. In the meantime the Tories cream off billions to their mates, hide even more in offshore accounts to avoid tax (that would pay for military spending), and spend more billions on the projects that the Armed Forces didn't want.
It would be nice to have a government in Canada that funds our military properly. Although, there doesn't seem to be any realistic prospects for that at the moment.
Thing with Norway spending is that their GDP probably increased in the last few years due to the increased gas and oil revenues. And then the defense spending might not increase the same, making the percentage decrease.
This 2% guideline is alittle weird for Norway. In 2020 we spent 2.01% on the military. But 3 years later our GDP was 33,5% higher because Russia was cut of as an energy supplier and we took over. Even tho we upped our budget (budgets are made before we know how much the GDP will be) from 7,27 billion USD to 9,08 billion in 2023 it was still to little and we only managed 1,67% that year. If we had said no to supplying the EU with energy and kept our GDP on 2020 levels we would have used 2,5% of GDP in 2023. The thing is, all the oil and gas money goes into the National Pensions fund. This fund invests all of it abroad to not cause inflation in our small economy of 5,5mil inhabitants. The defence budget is paid for over the taxation of the citizens, but we lack almost all the funds from oil/gas. This means we per capita use a lot more than others. Finland is of same population as Norway, so i will compare the both. They only had 297 billion USD in GDP in 2023. While we had 482 billion USD. According to Statistics Finland, the average salary is 47,688 EUR per year. According to Statistics Norway, the average salary in Norway is 55,939 EUR per year. That is only a 17% difference in pay. But to cover the 2% guideline Norwegians would have to pay 62,29% more than Fins to reach the 2% goal. All because we have a artificially high GDP.
@@tcn9939 "The defence budget is paid for over the taxation of the citizens, but we lack almost all the funds from oil/gas. This means we per capita use a lot more than others. " A very decent chunk of the budget in Norway are dividends from the oil fund. iirc approximately 1/3rd. The dividends from the oil fund puts your entire economy on steroids
@@siffran123 The national pension fund (The oil fund) does not pay out any significant amount. We can use 3% of the profits the fund makes in one year (Some incorrectly believe we can use 3% of the entire fund every year). The problem here is that you have to wait a year to find out how much you can take out.
THANK YOU FOR SHARING! I’m from Virginia and I didn’t know these issues were really at stake. I assumed we’re southern enough to not worry about that, but this goes to show what not voting will do.
People forget that Canada is EFFICIENT. Almost ridiculously so. The main inputs to military spending are 100% local to Canada. Trucks, tanks, bullets and electronics are made cheaply, and WELL here. Training, research, patents etc are all local as well, and exports not imports. Unlike most countries that have to pay for US or German products in cash Canada has a trade surplus with the USA and buys almost nothing from anyone else. America pays Canada, in Canadian dollars. This is literally unique in the world. The exchange rate alone accounts for about half the target spending deficit. Canada is less riding on US coat tails, & more the Tailor and Thread Products Ltd that makes those coats to begin with. Trump was literally ignorant of that, while all other US presidents have actually consulted the books in detail. The spending target was based on traditional swords while we are mass producers of razor blades... the throats of the enemy cannot tell the difference.
You are delusional. How can Canada be so efficient and yet the least productive in the G7? Our procurement system and record of procurement could well be a standard textbook of what NOT to DO. Our fighter jets are from the 1980's. Our frigates are the same. We used to have destroyers in the 70's. Now, none. The last frigate build in Canada was about 50 years ago. Our tanks are 30 years old and we had to buy expendable ones from other countries for spare parts. We bought 4 used submarines from the UK. They have been a disaster. Not sure if any of them are even sea worthy. We have to rent a commercial ship to act as a fleet replenishment ship. We had a proud military history. Recently, they closed down and mothballed the trainer jets for fighter pilots. We have to send our pilots to other countries to be trained for flying the F35 which should be coming to Canada in the next 20 years. Same with the proposed subs. Over the next 20 years. New tanks not even talked about. The big frigate project that was announced in 2015 or 2016 has yet to cut steel for the first frigate. Yes, that's how good our procurement system and record is. I would like to have a response!
As a Canadian, I think we should be able to self defend, especially in the arctic. We should rival Russia for arctic power, if not exceed them. I’d rather my taxes go there than arrivescam apps and Trudeau’s sock collection.
What Trump said, although pretty bluntly put, makes absolute sense. 2% is a pretty reasonable military spending, particularly for advanced economies such as those in NATO. To say 'okay, but I prefer to spend it elsewhere' is an insult to other member states, which are paying 2% or more for military, so there's the moral issue with it. And in practice, in case of war, commitment should be proportional. Why take advantage of the military of other countries, that are spending more than you? And ultimately, if you think there's no chance you'll ever be in danger, and don't want to spend, then leave NATO.
Nato was created to protect Europe, not the US. If the Europeans won't spend their monies to protect themselves then as Trump said then why should the US do it.
I agree -- and I believe that is what Trump is going to do - if/when - he returns to the White House - - - he will pull the US out of NATO & let the rest of them face Putin on their own !!! --?-- A "fair" way of finally solving the problem - eh ? - - - As a US citizen - I hope he throws the UN the hell out of our country also !!! > They belong in Brussels.
@@daimonien My earlier post: Your reply: That was more than eighty years ago. Let's suppose that was a good idea. Let's further suppose that the American effort to contain Soviet Expansion after WWII was a good idea. The Soviet Union dissolved more that THIRTY YEARS AGO! American foreign policy since then proves, I think. that the American World Empire we continue to main tain is a MISTAKE. The United States is NOT the policeman of the world, and frankly, we don't have the WISDOM to tell everyone else in the world what they must and must not do,. Bring our military and navy home NOW! The world will, you know, sort out it's own problems without us. It ALWAYS will.
Canadian vet here. We are totally underfunded. But yet, the government have the courtesy to put free tampons in men washroom. Go figure. Trudeau must go.
I feel it should be noted, while there was no goal or expectation for 2% until the early 2000s, *it also wasn't a significant issue until then to.* During the cold war, an overwhelming majority of members far exceeded a 2% threshold. NATO & free Europe as a whole was preparing for the very serious Soviet invasion threat. However, with the fall of the USSR budgets got astronomically cut with many members going from contributing to NATO for defense, to solely relying on it for defense. "Why spend money on tanks that will never see service when Uncle Sam and Aunt NATO have your back?" Which, to be fair is somewhat understandable. Who exactly do Czechie have to worry about invading? Or Belgium. Most of Europe has buffer states for their buffer states.
50+ years born & raised on this property here in Canada? This is THE FIRST TIME EVER, 'EVER' to have virtually No Snow this "Winter"? And all the world cares about is spending More BILLIONS on WAR?... You know we are FXXKED when☠ And for all the idiot comments that will say, YAY! NO SNOW! BE HAPPY!... I have Absolute Magical memories growing up With Winter that I would wish Every Child to be Blessed with, so STFU. Winter is Canada😇NOT American Warmongers👿 THE WORLD needs to get its Priorities Straight & Fast.
@@ryeguy7941 Partially - COVID payments that kept a lot of people afloat during the pandemic. But, our healthcare is actually pretty good (comparatively) - the wait lines just suck.
@@b6yg That isn't a reasonable question, Europe has a far larger military, far larger population, vastly larger economy and controls the ocean access to the Russian heartlands. Russia does not compare to Europe in anything but land mass, in everything else it compares to individual countries in Europe. Frankly the Russian military is irrelevant to the question, an economist or demographics specialist could tell you who wins a war between Europe and Russia just like they could tell you USA would win against Japan in ww2, when it comes down to it Europe simply has the capabilities to replace loses at a level Russia can't compete with. Which is why every "Russia could invade!" scenario either assumes Russia would be able to mobilize 3 million men over night or assumes Russia would take the Baltic states and then Europe would just act like nothing happened. Because any scenario based in reality doesn't show Russia as a threat so they are pointless for the "Russia strong" and "Europe doesn't spend enough on defense" crowds to peddle. A war between Europe and Russia would take place solely on Russian soil.
@@freedomfighter22222the only deterrant Russia has is the nuclear one. Would explain why the first Nato nation that would dare to attempt to send troop is the only other fully autonomous nuclear power besides the US in Nato, since even if its a fraction of the nukes its largely enough to nuke Moscow and St-petersburg the 2 area where most of the Population is centered around, rest being so small in terms of density its worthless
Cheers from Poland to other NATO countries! We learned one thing in the past: "Can you count? Count on yourself!". Of course we will help our partners if there will be a problem and we'd like to be protected by our allies too.
2% also helps maintain a certain size of defence industrial base which may be why Europe is relatively weak in DIB compared to the US. This is as a huge amount of spending goes to salaries and fixed admin costs while higher spending above a minimum goes more towards equipment and procurement. If Europe is to become a decent military weight then they need to start consolidating their DIB for economies of scale but this is unlikely to happen due to national champions. Germany's promises are interesting but until they sign contracts it's just words and we're almost 2 years since the 100bn promise and barely any of that has been spent. Turkey and Greece have mandatory male conscription which is far cheaper to maintain large military forces.
@nath9091= DIB is the elephant in the room! When Trump clamors for the Europeans pulling their weight, the translation is: 'you don't buy enough American hardware'. The logical thing for Europeans would be to buy European; and accessorily it would help the balance of payments & employment situations. There is a EU initiative to strengthen the European DIB; but the crux of the matter is that there is not enough political union in the EU for a EU country to accept depending entirely on the industrial output of another EU country for a major Defense system. Joint ventures are hard to establish and harder still to make a success. This soon may change, since the US is now viewed as much less dependable as it used to be: a strong EU DIB now appears the only way forward.
XFinland has conscription too. Sweden has reinstated conscription some years back, women too. Sweden has a total defence by law. So people in the civil defence are important. Like health care workers. Sweden has also increased by law to 7 days, that citizens need to take care of themselves.
Absolutely true. We have to see some action real soon. Enough talk and pledges. Luckily Europe is home to some of the largest auto and aircraft manufacturers in the world. We should leverage that industrial power in creating a strong military industrial sector.
Surely budget cuts to a useless Canadian military can benefit real Canadians with extra spending on Canadian infrastructure and healthcare??? I don't see anyone about to invade Canada.... although the US had plans to invade in the past... not sure how Canada could stop US military crossing the border though.
@@ianclegg9572 Why not spend the money on the NHS and policing. Have you ever been to your local police station recently... they replaced staff with a telephone. Most police in the UK are only active with speed cameras, because tackling crime and anti-social behaviour costs money, compared to speeding fines when you drive 2 miles above the speed limit
I was a member of the 1st CSOR of the Canadian Armed Forces and I only flew on American aircraft, when I deployed I was always assigned to JSOC...essentially, I showed up with my body and uniform, also my weapons, but a couple times, I was told to choose if I wanted my issued weapons or pick from the American SF Catalog....well that is like taking a kid to all the toy manufacturers and saying "Take anything you want"! So, in 1993 I defected from Canada to the USA and enlisted in what is commonly known as Green Berets (19th Group) and served until medically retired in 2007. My sons both serve currently in the US Military (oldest in Army CBRN as a Captain and the youngest in Naval Special Warfare as a PO2....he was e3 enlisting, so by the time he graduated SQT and got to his platoon it was almost 3 years along before he even was ready to deploy).
No we wouldn't. Central America is part of the North American continent and we ignore all of problems they have. Mexico will be treated the same. Canada can lose its artic shipping routes before we even care.
TBF USA will never let Russia of even China for that fact even try to ''encroach''( for lack of a better term) on Canadian territory. and do you really think america would just let go of the artic? not a chance, i would bet they will just take it for themselves shoud the situation arise@@brianb5543
As an American I would go easy on criticism of Germany "under-spending" on defense until recently. After WWII the US invested in shaping a pacifistic Germany that had little reason or enthusiasm for building a strong military.
Also, for a bigger picture: Germany shouldered the heaviest burden of the cold war, hot war scenarios all played on German soil, and Germany spent above 3% of GDP until 1983. The defence cuts and long term gas contracts with Russia initially were meant to overcome the cold war and support Russia to open up to Europe. The intention was soon forgotten on both sides though, and from there it went just downhill. And Russian uge efforts of manipulation and infiltration in Germany never stopped after the cold war was declared over...
As a Belgian, yes we are nato freeriders, but keep in mind we are in a rather safe position wich has led to this. Non nato members as swiss and austria are even spending less on their military (1 and 0,76% of gdp) . But i agree, if you are in a club, you should follow the rules
I’m Canadian and we are SOOOO proud of our military history in WW1 & 2, and in Korea. We are proud of our tradition of international peace keeping. We are proud of being among USA and NATO Allies in Afghanistan from 2001-2014, completing peacekeeping, combat and training roles and assuming various NATO Leadership roles. We were peacekeepers in Rwanda. Ow we have a teeny tiny military of 100, 000 including reservists. Our prime minister says we will never reach 2%? His father Pierre Trudeau was widely criticized for making military spending cuts and n the early 1970’s, but throughout his time in office, spending remained close to 2% of GDP. I don’t blame Justin Trudeau for how low our spending is now, just for not responding to the NATO call for increased spending since NATO is now very much on a war footing in support of Ukraine and increasing threat to NATO allies in Western Europe. Also, as Arctic sea ice retreats every year, CANADIAN security in our Arctic Territory will be in ever increasing security risk and we can’t realistically expect NATO and particularly the USA to do all the heavy lifting on our behalf. Canada should take the example of Poland with a similar population and an economy approximately 1/3 of Canada’s. Poland has an army much larger than Canada’s and is increasing spending closer to 4%GDP. Surely Canada can manage 2%?
Since we refuse to buy ships from other countries we are constrained by a lack of capacity to build more. We have 6 Arctic patrol ships in the process of construction and commissioning at the moment. After that the frigate program will occupy the construction yards in Halifax for about 20 years. Perhaps the Pacific yards could be used to build more robust arctic warships in the future if the money could ever be found, but even then Seaspan is still finishing up with the at sea replenishment ships and then has a number of Coast Guard ships on order.
@@kevinw2592 "If the election was held today, the Conservatives would get 40 per cent of the ballot support marking a 15-point lead over the Liberals, who are at 24.7 per cent ballot support." Trudeu better update his resume, doubt that would help
When being up that trump quote you failed to mention that he said it at a time when only 5 nato countries were meeting the GDP and it was in an internal nato only meeting. After which spending did increase for countries next to russia.
I agrre with Trump almost never. But he was right about this and China. Not sure about the middle east but i guess we will see how that shakes out. And let's me honest he didn't understand foreign policy he just had some decent advisors
This was a quote he said just a few weeks ago at a rally not in a nato meeting. And so at that point a large majority are paying their way. And even if not him saying we won’t defend them is wrong because they are still protected under article 5
@@tsdocholiday8965No it was from a nato meeting in 2016. Its in the news recently because at a rally he retold the story of how he said that in a Nato meeting. Also "large majority" are not paying their way not in 2016 when he said it and not today.
I find your description more exhaustive and deep than many international media press. But like Italian who I am I had to exempt a pair of news for a more interesting and real analysis: 1) Italy have one of the biggest public debt in the world and can't exceed his actual defence budget funds without consequences on public finances. 2) Never than less, Italy have one of the strongest, more operational and best equipped Air force and Navy in all European continent. 3) Over that, Italy in the last over twenty years has spent in international operations more than many other NATO countries . It's partecipations starts with the operations in Congo in the sixties, in the seventies in the Persian Gulf, Libano in 1982, Straight of Hormutz and Persian Gulf crisis, Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Iraq in 1990/1991, Somali operations 1992 (to now 2024!), in Mozambique in 1994, in Balcanians wars in the nineties , in Kosovo and Serbia war in 1998, Timor Est peace operations, Enduring Freedom and NATO ISAF missions in Afghanistan since 2001 to 2021, Iraqi Freedom and NATO mission since 2003 (to now 2024!), Libyan war in 2011, and many more operations that in some cases are on course by decades like the ONU naval mission in Red Sea that starts over forty years ago. So probably Italy didn't spent so much in the last decades but it was really not a freerider and it's incorrect say that for sure.
!Quick correction with respect to Turkey's new budget! Total defence budget of Turkish Armed Forces is not $45 billion. In fact, Perun uploaded a video about this special case of budget spending with regard to Turkey. This budget includes Police Forces, Intelligence Forces, Turkish Gendarmerie Forces(Similar interior forces like in France), and Turkish Armed Forces. The main reason why the defense budget of the Turkish Armed Forces is below 2% of GDP is mostly due to the lack of foreign procurement and not being able to finalize mass production on their own products. Moreover, the TAF's defense budget does not come from a single line item, but also includes transfers from other sources such as the Turkish Armed Forces Foundation(TAFF), classified budgets and OYAK(different assets). Although an exact estimate of the budget cannot be made with regard to TAF, the budget was lower than it should have been due to embargo on foreign purchases and the fact that serial production agreements for their own products have not yet been finalized. I think this will increase due to tensions in the region because this year Turkey's defense budget (including the Turkish Armed Forces and other branches) has been authorized to exceed $45 billion as you said. It is reasonable to expect that this will increase periodically since US-TUR relations are restoring again from F16 procurement to possible re-entering F35 program. Side note: Turkey's Purchasing Power Parity is somewhat close to India and Russia than any other European states. So this type of budget spending parameters are really different for each country.
Yeah but NATO allows counting police forces, intelligence forces, paramilitary forces, etc. Finland undercounts its defense spending and doesn't include for example border guards (militarized paramilitary under ministry of interior), pensions, etc in its defense budget but if it included them then Finland also would spend close to 3% of GDP.
@@jk8557 Defence expenditure is defined by NATO as payments made by a national government (excluding regional, local and municipal authorities) specifically to meet the needs of its armed forces. So that is what NATO dictates, comparing this definition budget of Turkish Armed Forces are not $45 billion rather somewhat close to $20 billion. Similar thing could be applied Finland. However like I said, this type of defence spending budget comparison literally meaningless.
Throughout my naval career, I never saw a single Canadian ship, plane, soldier, sailor, or airman at any U.S. ports, but did see at least 20 other nations. Do they even have a Navy?
A pathetically small one that wiuldn't even amount to a task force, much less a proper navy. And that's even if you include litorral ships that can't even operate outside coastal waters. Meanwhile, once upon a time after WW2, we had the 4th most powerful military in the world. And we did it with a pop of 11 million. We are more than capable of it again. If it weren't for the dipshits comitted to being parasites and think being able to defend yourself and allies is jingoistic.
If you look at a map you might notice that unlike European nations Canada already has ports in North America... Of course you are seeing European ships in US ports but not Canadian ones, the Europeans don't have home ports in the area so they have to dock in US and Canadian ports.
We technically do but the only place youll ever see it is moored up at the ship yards while they wait for funding or ebay parts to fix them an no im not kidding, thats an actual fact
Fair assessments... Now, it actually takes even more nuances (such a broad topic...) So, as French (FR/US, actually), may I add a few points (positive and negative) about France? - Since Macron came to power (2017), budget increase was on the table, then implemented (2018), so no wonder France was at the 1,9 mark in 2022. - Then, the Russian invasion sort of "boosted the boost". - However. France is the 3rd largest arm exporter behind the US and Russia. And some experts predict it's already the second largest now. But, though the R&D is superb, the industrial capabilities fall behind. Good designers, not enough manufacturers. This is where we should invest much more. Esp. when investments are not just about our military, but also economic growth, exports, etc. Which should lead to an increase in domestic spending. - So, all in all, the French military spending should accelerate much more. It's still lacking, in the industrial layer, though efforts are made. We're stuck in the "haute-couture" paradigm. Time to shift... Sidenotes: French nuclear deterrence is completely free of other nations' interference. While the UK's is bound to the US. So, what happens if the US do not condone, or withdraw? What is the UK voice as an anbiguous nuclear power? Can they have a doctrine of their own? We have only one aircraft carrier (a shame). But it can operate with US planes, and French planes take off and land on US carriers (CATOBAR magic). This is a pointer. No other nations can experience the shared strength of "camaraderie". The NATO logo is bilingual, it also spells the French version, OTAN (look at it). So where we're at? Preparing for a US whithdrawal, with strong nations like Poland, possibly Italy (industrial powerhouse). Not willing to be the unique nuclear umbrella over Europe, unsure about Germany, too far behind. Problem: We also have strong interests/presence in the Pacific. But, maybe we'll let our Canadian friends to step up. OK, yes, we need to spend more...
Its also interesting to consider that France even prior to Ukraine was already on a modernisation plan of its army and navy and that it was still on schedule last i checked. The sole problem as you said is that the program takes a long time because France screwed its military industry for high tech stuff, but hey the closer we get to 2030-5 the stronger France will be and with the war accelerating things it could finish early perhaps
Ironic that Belgium is the location of NATO HQ. Also ironic that- doesn’t Canada have a border dispute or two with the USA and/ or Denmark somewhere in the Arctic?
Any American who wants the US to leave NATO should read this first (I am also American for context): How much any country spends on NATO does not matter. The US spends more on sunk projects for its armed forces than it does on NATO regularly. Even if every country in NATO spent 1% of its GDP on the military, the US would get more out of what it pays for NATO right now (which isn't a ton) than it would out of any other military investment it has ever made in history in terms of strength and numbers. Now, as this video mentions most of NATO pays well above 1%. True, there are countries not meeting their goals, but that doesn't mean they're "not paying their bills" or something like that. Should they pay more? Probably. But it literally does not matter to America whether they do or not. (in case you're curious though, the NATO common fund is not the same as military spending % of GDP, and is taken from all countries based on economy size. THIS is their "bill" and they all pay it to be in the alliance.) Any country that attacks a NATO country would do so very well aware of Article 5. That means, they would know that they are also attacking the US. Any country willing to do something that stupid is already going to be a threat to the US: It is better that we can fight such a threat with literally 2 times the American GDP and triple its population. Even with mediocre spending right now, in a time of war that would change fast. Ukraine went from 3% to an astonishing 33% of its GDP spent on the military since the Russian invasion. Imagine the difference in military power that could be gained from an extra 25 TRILLION in GDP from all of NATO other than the US (which is another 25 trillion on its own). The combination of NATO forces literally doubles the effective strength of the United States. DOUBLES. And the US is already the most powerful country on Earth militarily speaking. China on its own could be a threat to the US--not to the mainland yet, but certainly to our interests. Russia could be a threat with its thousands of nuclear weapons, and without US nuclear cover other states would be forced to gain their own nukes in order to deter that threat. This would mean more opportunity for rash deployment of such weapons than already exists, which is worse for everybody. With the US in NATO, there is literally no power on this earth, including the sum forces of the rest of the world (international GDP is only around 96 trillion including NATO) that would even stand a chance. The US is powerful but cannot take on the world alone if it had to. NATO can. The idea that we should leave the alliance which has ensured security in Europe (among member nations) and between global superpowers for the greater part of a century is insane. It is even more insane that the reasoning is other countries "not paying enough" in defense spending, when they literally have zero incentive to do so: NATO is not at war, and they are not under serious threat because the more heavily armed NATO countries could easily hold back any threat as a quick reaction force while their economies shift to being war-based. There is this American ideal that everyone should be independent and the US shouldn't allow European countries to rely on it for their security, but that's the problem. It's a cultural issue we have. We gain unfathomably more out of NATO then we spend on it, it's fair enough that European nations can gain from it too. They are our allies, and in a war they would sacrifice their men and women to protect us just as we would do for them. And that mutual agreement is what means that neither side will hopefully ever have to. Edit: It's also worth pointing out that we don't pay more because other countries pay less. If we were not in NATO, any American knows darn well we would be spending the exact same amount on our military. That's just what America is like until we elect someone REALLY crazy. NATO doesn't affect how much we pay here in the US.
For a long time, the US did pay a lot of money for NATO. It's just like the UN which is another subject in itself. Is europe relied on the US. Yes I'm glad that they are finally waking up and smelling in the coffee. And yes, I think it would be foolish for the U.S. to leave NATO. They are our allies, and we share a lot of the technology between us, which is a good thing.
a little thing to add as a fellow European.. the article 5 was activated only once in the history of NATO and that was after the 9/11 attacks... NATO countries sent their troops to Afghanistan as a result... even my country(Slovakia) sent 430 men out of the total 64,500 troops in the ISAF - NATO coalition
I think that actually leaving nato would yes be a bad move tactically but threatening to do it as a negotiation tactic to get the negligent nations to wake up is fine. I think everyone knows the US wouldn’t actually pull out but I do respect it as a negotiating move so the us military isn’t acting as the worlds mercenary force when they get attacked and don’t have any troops of their own to deploy. That’s my gripe with nato is that much like the US government across the board, has no accountability. They’ve set a precedent that there’s not much you can do that will actually get you thrown out of the alliance so why do what you’re supposed to?
As a Belgian who cares about this, I would have to say the reasoning of Belgium not hitting the mark is completely misread. It's not because 'France will come to our rescue', it's that they think the US will. Even with Trump's remarks (again), they still believe steadfast that just like WW1 and WW2, the US will eventually come to the rescue. Most Belgians don't even realise we don't even reach the 2% mark (or didn't even reach 1% for years), and frankly, they don’t care at all or think this is a good thing. Second and more importantly, is that there is no support amongst the population or politicians to invest in the military, and due to the nature of Belgian politics, the government is always a compromise of half a dozen parties who cuts defense spending whenever money is needed. If you bring this subject up, you will always get the same remarks: - Who would attack Belgium? We're surrounded by allies! - What can little small Belgium do? We can't match /insert name/! - We don't need an army, we have NATO! (or less common: The US will defend us!) - We already spend way too much on our military! The problem is that most Belgians doesn’t care, nor want to cut any spending elsewhere (despite Belgium having a decent economy all things considered). Most also think that, rather than a combination of all the member's states militaries, NATO is an actual army of 'people from NATO'. There is just no knowledge of any military matters, nor how historically, our military always managed to do extremely well given it always had everything going against it.
what we should be cutting is the 8 or 9 governments we have in this bloody country and cutting all the pension of the government workers ,they never do anything useful. we have the flemisch - walloon - german speaking part - 2 for brussels - national - 2 or 3 for europe and they are all working against each other and of course raising taxes every bloody year. And as a result white belgiums will be foreigners in our own county in about 20 year when 60% of the population are bloody muslims
We're sitting on the largest amount of frozen Russian assets, more than any other country. The European powers won't ever reach much of an agreement or foreign policy, just look at how both Macron and Scholz are making a fool of themselves, constantly turning their words around. They couldn't even organize a picnic without some Belgian or other small country intermediating. Not in politics and most definitely not when it comes to decisive military action. They are all three still stuck up nationalists, always putting their nations interests first, thinking they are still superior over the other instead of cooperating properly. Our focus will always be bringing cohesion instead of contradiction. That's our task. Nothing else. Making sure we all get a say and don't get pushed around by uncle Sam. And yes: we did have 20% of our male population armed in WW2, some of the highest in the world. Or what about Fabrique National, one of the best small arms producer in the world. Plenty of reasons to not give a single solitary shit about whatever comes out of the yellow clown his mouth. We'll leave the sucking up to the USA to the Netherlands. Leve België.
Missed the Netherlands in this video. Expected to hit the 2% in 2024 (finally). Building a bunch of new frigates to protect our freeloading southern neighbor 😁
We Brits would always come to the aid of the Netherlands. The way you,folks take care of the graves of our fallen veterans from the war is unbelievable. As an ex British infantry veteran visiting, I was moved to tears very proudly watching families cut the grass and maintain the area where our guys are buried in Holland.
We need to also touch on, as this has been twisted by Trump - that NATO spending per country, is NOT put into some kind of lump some of all funding then distributed or some stupid idea. the 2% of GDP idea is for those countries to put into defense spending in general. nothing really has to do with money going towards NATO. as NATO isnt an entity itself, its a collection of countries, unlike the UN that is an entity itself used to allow countries to talk to each other and provide humanitarian support. So, if one country isnt spending their 2% of defense, it effects... just that country. IF it was directly attacked. No one else has to pick up its bills. Q: "what about NATO military bases in other countries? Who will pay for those?" A: Theres no such thing as NATO only bases. each military base is set up by one country, and can be jointly used. Usually every country that wants a long term presents at said base HAS to fork over the funding for maint, overhead, care for wing facilities for their troops, ect. There is no real downside unless the said country that isnt spending enough is attacked first. I say attacked first, because if Article 5 is called, every nation in NATO will bump their spending past that 2%.
That’s true- but it is supposed to be for the common defense and like it or not - a lot of NATO countries did start increasing their defense spending because Trump was calling them out
@@jdluntjr76226 Common Defense of what? lets look at Gerrmany. they bump up to 2% or higher. where's that money go? ... no where but its own military forces. like said at the end, if article 5 is called, all NATO countries will bump their spending way past that 2% anyway. And Trump didnt do anything but threaten to leave NATO... he still does, and tell russia to invade our allies. which he still does. It was the invasion of Ukraine that brought spending back up.
Belgium, despite looking bad in the rankings, does do one good thing that other small monetary contributors to NATO could usefully emulate - it concentrates its spending for greater effect. Belgium has a lot of minesweeping ships for it size, and is currently updating its fleet with new vessels with the latest technology bought from France. Even if Belgium greatly increased its military budget, the country is too small to have much hope of resisting invasion or military pressure on its own. So membership of an effective alliance is essential, and ideally Belgium should be seen by its alliance partners as a valued member. Within NATO Belgium has enough resources to become a centre of minesweeping expertise, and has done so. Sea mines are a growing threat, but sweeping them tends to be bit of a neglected speciality in many bigger navies. It's difficult and dangerous in any navy, but not great for career progression. But in Belgium's minesweeper-heavy navy being good at minesweeping is more likely to be good for the career of ambitious young officers. Anyway, Belgium can usefully provide NATO with a minesweeping contingent should any adversary start deploying them. And in current conflicts there's a lot of innovation taking place in related area such as uncrewed military sea drones, in both surface and underwater forms. So minesweeping expertise may be making a comeback. A factor neglected in the video is that raising spending on NATO or the military generally can be a hard sell in many European countries. The money will have to come from somewhere else in the government budget, and peaceloving Europeans may prefer better hospitals, railways or policing over spending on missiles and warplanes in distant conflicts. Minesweeping is an activity less overtly agressive than bombing or strafing, so politically its likely to be an easier sell. Another example of this is Sweden. Before becoming a full member of NATO recently, Sweden practiced working with NATO forces by sending helicopters kitted out as air ambulances to operate alongside them in Afghanistan. Thus making the idea of membership in the NATO alliance more palatable to the citizens who will be paying the bills in their taxes.
Brit here who spent 22 years in the uk armed forces and now works in the private security sector. Just want to add that yes, the UK does spend 2.3 % but that really doesn’t mean it’s spent well and in the right places.
Pretty sure thats the same across the board. There is a LOT of waste not only in the military but also just in gov spending in general.
@@mylt1z28 never a truer word spoken
and like wise France got a nod here for only spending 1.9% but they seem to be ale to make that go quite far.
@@dan7564the benefit of a very solid and efficient military purchasing system. The opposite of say, Germany, who have one of the least efficient. The Uk comes somewhere in the middle in my modest opinion. Should really add through that please don’t take my comment as a criticism of NATO itself, it’s far from a paper tiger. I remember being on joint exercises in the past that always surprised during stress testing, and all members bring something to the table. It’s just a symptom of the current world that NATO has to lean heavily on the US, and despite the stupid comments that come from some of the “twitter republicans” that show a complete lack of understanding of foreign policy the US actually needs and understands the need for them to be the solid foundation of NATO. A major European war would be terrible for them.
@@UncleJoeJoeso true , I’m a Brit and I am yes quite pissed off at our current military more on numbers of ships, combat aircraft , tanks and actual personnel we aren’t just completely terrible, still one of if not the best trained in the world and we are unless labour gets in ever increasing this ability,
World: "Poland, what are you preparing for?"
Poland: "to win"
"This time the speedbump will have teeth"
I am sorry but that goes for the whole eastern europe...if you ask what are we preparing for? History to repeat itself...we dont want to have our countries,languages and cultures destroyed again
Foreign minister of Poland said it well "we will eat grass before we become a Russian colony again ". Applicable to all Eastern European countries
Yeah just admit it in ww2 Slovakia fought against soviets so we were on the right side of history, correct?
Nice HLC reference there!
As a member of a Canadian military family I am furious by our leadership's failure to take security seriously. Not just Nato, but our arctic is constantly ignored at budget time.
They know America would just come save them. Basically most NATO countries in a nutshell. "Why should I waste my money on my military when America will come bail me out?"
Then they proceed to shit on America for all sorts of other topics and issues. Biting the hand that feeds them.
No one takes Canada seriously in politics and especially their military.
Canada will always be in the shadow of United States anyway.
Hopefully we can "flush the Turd" and turn this back into a serious country again.
@@mikekovacs8981 our military has been slipping since the 90's, I dont think the bowl is big enough for all those turds
@@Dusty338 It was a fun little border dispute between the countries, both having claims on it, but when Russia started getting aggressive they decided that it would be better to have no border disputes within nato. We lost a third of a rock that we never really owned fully. Hardly giving away sovereign territory.
As a Canadian who is proud of my country’s history of defending freedom, I am embarrassed by the lack of support for NATO - and I can only point out that this stupid policy has a long history under politicians of right AND left.
💯 correct fellow Canuk. Regrettably, you are 💯 correct. Many of us are ashamed of our government's lack of support in our CAF and NATO. Our military members deserve more.
We once had a jet that was better than theirs and they made us dismantle that project.
Very informative; thank you Simon
@@North-of-the-49th Well, when we don't have enough houses or enough food, spending money on foreign wars, seems a little frivolous. I'd support pulling out of NATO; being able to tell other countries how they need to govern themselves is a luxury we can't afford. Defending a country that isn't part of NATO and supporting its offensive claim on territory that does not want to be part of it, is not something I think we should be spending money on.
Crimea has repeatedly voted and acted in a way totally consistent with not wanting to be part of Ukraine. They have very few Ukrainians there,
@@Pugh.Pugh.BarneyMcGrewAmazing. Every word you just said was wrong.
I feel like many people are missing the point of the 2% spending. The point is everyone according to their own economy's pay 2% of what they make for their OWN security. It's like asking Elon to pay 2% for guns for his own security and you need to spend 2% for for guns for your security. So long as everyone is making efforts to protect themselves everyone will go out of their way to defend each other. So almost like a neighborhood watch.
The rich guy spends 2% of his budget for guns and has a mini gun.
You, a broke lad, spends 2% of your budget and get a handgun.
Therefore everyone is doing their part to have defences for themselves and will come to the aid of one another. If you get attacked minigun is coming to your aid. If minigun gets attacked you are going to help him with your handgun.
No one is to have a free hand out of Security. "I will help you defend yourself, not be your meat shield for you" concept.
Not sure why percentages are hard for people to comprehend, but this is a nice way to put it. Thank you. If Greece can do it, Canada can.
Except the "neighbourghood watch" only cares about musk s interest in the end, and not the poor guy s ones...
So why chip in in something that doesn t benefits most of us?
It only takes an extremely basic understanding of math to come to this conclusion... super messed up people don't understand it. However, due to the bad reporting and misleading language, I can see why so many can misunderstand it.
@Daxiongmao87 No, we can't. That would take money away from politicians and their friends. Sowwy
Or like paying your taxes to fund national defense. Rather than letting other countries pay for it
As a Canadian I am disappointed and disgusted in our lack of military upkeep. It's been on a long going slow decline in my opinion since 1959. No party in Canada in at least the last 24 years has been pledging to spend large sums of money to upgrade our equipment or increase stocks. So as a Canadian I can only apologize and hope that the next dimwit that gets elected is better. Though I highly doubt it.
"So as a Canadian I can only apologize"
huehuehue
It is true, we Canadians rely too much on our American friends to do the dirty work! I'm very disappointed in my country.
I don’t know anything about the Canadian military but I just came from a NATO exercise and we were jealous of the Canadian equipment we saw. My unit is a reserve unit and our trucks are old and we couldn’t properly equip them for the conditions we were going to but the Canadian’s had some really nice shit.
It is embarrassing. To think we used to operate aircraft carriers and now we can barely respond to a flood.
Canadian here too. Equally disappointed by our military spending. I have the same hopes that our leaders will get their act together and seriously rebuild our military.
United we stand, divided we fall seems like an appropriate statement.
The Europoors can keep this whole "we" out of their mouth.
@@obviouslyadudeWe made you, gave you freedom and now we prop the US up politically. In exchange the us send people to die and europe chill. The world gets no more world wars as the US unlike europe are scared of fighting large scale wars. Its a win for everyone, the us gov unlike its civvies understand this.
Americans should vote for politicians that want out of NATO.
@@jjx9316That would be the worst decision for the US. See the US is very very power hungry and atm with NATO it has all the power and reach it could ever politically and militarily want. Also in a war without a bunch of allies whether small or big ur kinda fucked, don't get me wrong the US has allies but literately a country with just 5K troops backing you up even when they don't really like you and wouldn't send troops normally but are alliance bound to do so is a big win or lose difference
@@johniscoming2239 only Democrats in the US want endless war because the DNC needs campaign contributions from companies like Raytheon, Northrop, BAE etc. Most Americans on the right don't want to send our money or weapons to anyone.
As a Canadian, I am totally disgusted with our Federal government for continually spending an inadequate amount on its military, this regardless of the party in power. Besides NATO, as was mentioned in this video, Canada should also be concerned with encroachment on its Northern borders. A total embarrassment! PM Trudeau and Mr. Poilievre ARE YOU LISTENING.
And Canada was THE badazzes in WW1 and WW2. What the heck happened?
Nobody thinks about your Northern border. Even in this video Canada wasn't listed as a NATO country that shares a border with Russia!
Still trying to figure out how Trudeau is going to increase spending to meet the target while announcing cutting 4 billion over the next 4 years.
@SSN515 Our politicians (liberals AND conservatives) are complacent and feel that Canada can continue to ride on America's military coat tails. Most Canadians support our Canadian Armed Forces and want to see increases to the National Defense budget. We are ashamed...
@@SSN515it became excessively liberal
As a Dane im happy that our politicians finally got our act together.
Aye it took long enough too for us to get here, but at least they did recognise that we were dragging our heels and needed to up it. The better news is that they have said that 2.0% is not enough for Danish defence spending and they are planning to up it even further, meaning its not just a political move to do the bare minimum.
Based, now put them to work and stop defending the traitors and bottomed out cult.
when is it gonna hit 2%?
@@eskildscott7841 It hit the 2% in 2023 and is expected to hit it again in 2024.
@@eskildscott7841 it allready has
Canadian here. I'm even left wing. This analysis is bang on.
I was waiting the whole video waiting for the slagging we deserve.
I especially appreciate the mentioning of how stupid it is that this is being ignored while strategic waterways are opening up for year-round traversal without any shift in spending to secure our sovereign territory
Don't be ignorant to our exceptional defensive geography. Pacific Ocean and the Rocky Mountains in the west. Atlantic Ocean and Canadian Shield in the east. Inhospitable north for the majority of the year and the Arctic Ocean. Not to mention NORAD and our proximity to the best military in the world. That said, I think the best place for defensive spending is on new nuclear submarines and a full-scale domestic drone program.
@@Stemsoup It's not about defending ourselves. Our protection is basically guaranteed by the US as even if the US hated us, they HAVE to protect us from invasion as any conquest of Canada leaves the US northern border open to military invasion by whoever conquers Canada. Thus, Canada will be defended as aggressively as US soil would by the Americans. It's about Canada's ability to contribute meaningfully to defend our ALLIES.. not ourselves. As it stands if our allies are attacked, we can at best offer an utterly dismal and laughable pittance of military power to protect our friends. This is in sharp contrast to WWI and WWII where Canadians made a monumental contribution in fighting men to both wars to defend Europe from German aggression. Our modern military today couldn't even offer a fraction of the amount of fighting forces we did over a century ago, despite our now vastly larger population.
Why do you think that the Europeans would do anything if Canada called on them for defence?
@@seanlander9321Your suggestion is absurd. It will never happen, nobody will ever invade Canada so long as the US exists. The US will never allow their northern border to be invaded by a foreign power, opening them up to invasion. The US would defend Canada as if it were US soil, not because they care about Canada but because it would have to for their own protection against a ground invasion from the north by whoever took Canada. That said, any talk of "invasion" of North America is childish and idiotic, it will never happen, it would result in nuclear war just as nuclear war would break out if NATO forces ever set foot inside of Russian borders.
Canada doesn't "need" Europe for defense of it's mainland, but it does for it's trade routes on water. It's homeland is guaranteed safe by US' nuclear arsenal and conventional might. Europe, through NATO will defend Canada's trade routes if they are threatened for the same reason Canada would do the same - 1) The damage done to reputation to fail to come to an ally you are sworn to aid would take generations to repair 2) Self interest. Canada is a large trading partner for many members of the EU, losing access to Canadian resources would be very damaging to their economies, just as would losing access to the EU market be damaging to the Canadian economy.
AFAIC, it's treason. We're on the cusp of war. And this fecal stain in the PM's office has declared us defenseless.
Lets not pretend we aren't. Our military is tiny. With outdated and obsolete gear. And even the modern gear is irrelevant for one single, critical reason.
We have exactly THREE DAYS WORTH OF EXPENDIBLE AMMUNITIONS in stockpile.
THREE.
DAYS.
I appreciate Norway, Poland, the UK, Greece, and the Baltic nations for being team players.
In case of Greece if you had neighbor like a Turky you will spend alot in Defence , sadly Nato and EU are full of bs fueling the rivarly to get money.
Norway isn’t according to the video
It should be noted while its bad many are not spending 2% percent, but in reality if they were not in NATO in the first place they would be spending much less. So a nation spending 1% or 1.5% would be spending 0.2% like what Ireland spends.
It should also be noted that NATO spending is not just money thrown into a pot. every country spends on their own military, and every single country country spending more than the 2% due so for their geopolical aims, and very obvious what those are to. Like greece for example spends so much on military because turkey is always threatening to annex their islands. It was not for turkey they would not be meeting the 2%.
@@AL-lh2htGreece is in the Balcans so even if Turky BS was not here still will invest at Defence, Balcans are the Pandora Box of the EU and well every one claim terretory and History of others even the names twisted reality not to mention you say Turky Claim Greek Islands seems to me you should think why Greece got them and loose Half Albania with have Greek population and still they got opressed there because Albania was Italys puppet nation.
@@godfriedakuesson1614 Norway is also a special case... kind of. It did spend 2.01% of GDP in 2020 ($7.27B). However, as the European markets transitioned from Russian oil and gas to Norwegian fossil products the Norwegian economy experienced immense growth no politician could have anticipated. Norway increased defense spending by more than $1B from 2020 to 2023 to $9.08B to continue meeting the guideline, but because of the economic growth this only amounted to 1.67%.
Had Norway refused to replace oil and gas from Russia and spent the current defense budget for the country, it would now be spending 2.5% of GDP
As a Brit, I recommend all interested in defense spending to watch Perun's videos on each nations military procurement.
He shows how France is able to project power, maintain an independent military and have a nuclear arsenal while spending less of their gdp than the UK.
He also paints quite a bleak picture of Germanys cash injection and how poorly it could be managed.
Perun is pure gold. The humour and information delivery is brilliant.
The UK is really innovative but they so rarely follow through with their defense plans - it’s like every ten years they do another paper - cancel a bunch of stuff and change direction - the Queen Rlizabeth class carriers is an example- why the hell would you build a big deck carrier without arresting gear and catapults limiting your fixed winged aircraft to the F-35b which is really good now, but will it still be formidable in a couple of decades - then what will the UK replace it with - I’ll tell you what they will do - they will scrap the ships like they did the Invincible class
@@jdluntjr76226 It is a tough thing to do, guess the future in military stuffs, especially with politics butting in. I doubt the power/propulsion system can support electromagnet catapults currently (if you pardon the pun). However, not having arresting gear is pretty shocking, I hope they have the 'traditional' emergency barrier type stuff still. I've not looked into the workings of the vessels, it does sound short-sighted though. Oh well, China might get a new casino /o\
@@jdluntjr76226 our leaders don't share the same leadership and vision as the general population
i don't think that's correct , the UK had had the ability to project , combined arms unlike France, notably Iraq, Afganistan, Kosovo
I just want you to know Poland-
*We are so proud of you*
You're invited to the cookout.
-America
Poland low key a baddie (in the good way)
Fuck yeah they are. You're dope Poland.
They got caught with their pants down in the few last wars, they decided never again
Cool. We’ll bring pierogi
Poland has lost its independence too many times, and now they are not McF*cking around anymore
Poland: we have like 200 years of combined Russian occupation between 1795 and 1989, with few breaks. Not want to repeat this experience.
Very true
We occupied a large part of Russia but it was so icky (as are their population) that we just left. Sweden stands with Poland on this, Polens sak är vår.
Yes, you have been betrayed by every ally so far. Absolutely disgusting. Poland has survived so well despite the heinous behaviour against it.
Finland. Over thousand years of troubles. We have saying "nothing good comes from east".
Russia has been invaded by The West five times in the past 220 years. I may be wrong, but I think the Russians are getting annoyed about that. Napoleon tried to burn Moscow down, The Germans allowed Lenin to cross into Russia and bring about a Communist revolution, then 27 years later raped and murdered 26 million Russians. And people wonder why Putin is cross!!
As a 5th generation Canadian, with grandparents and great grandparents that have fought in the great wars, I am embarrassed that our country has neglected our military so much to make it ineffective. Great video Simon, shame Canada's politicians have made us so ... derelict. Sorry world, Canada isn't back yet.
I was gonna say, really surprisingly given Canada's traditionally ready and willing to engage in foreign wars to protect freedom and sovereignty. Canada used to have a formidable military. Hope to see your government pull their heads out of their asses.
@@TheSickjits I mean, despite the fact that I also agree as a Canadian, I don't see it happening. Domestic politics already complains heavily about taxes. The Conservatives (the current Liberal government's main opponent) are running on lowering taxes which is incompatible with increased military spending. I'm sure they'd argue otherwise but that's not how math works.
I agree. But it must be said that Canada had even less standing military forces immediately prior to both of the great wars than it has now. Our ancestors were every bit as disinterested in maintaining peacetime militaries as we are today.
The only way the Conservatives can raise military budget after slashing taxes is by slashing other social security programs that helps people in need. Money has to come from somewhere and nothing is free.
Or they might stealthily raise taxes after publicly slashing taxes like Reagan did just to keep up military spending.
It’s the prick Tredau. The fact that he’s still in makes my blood boil.
Being a citizen of a notorious (although un-mentioned) budget slacker, I am pleased, that Denmark is now planning to spend 2.02% of our projected 2024 BNP on defense in that same year.
About time we "manned" up. Financially. Now we just need to find the actual manpower 😁
actually Denmark reach 2% in 2003, because we can count in all donation to Ukraine
@Ifaverby do you mean 2023?
@@mortenpoulsen1496 Yes, that's a big problem. Our ships have sailed patrol in the arctic for over 10 years without gun crew. More tanks? To what use, nobody to drive them. The only thing we have plenty of, is high ranking officers, who are commanding paper units. I have a sneaky feeling, that is much worse in Italy. The Italian demographic is very bad.
I think that Belgium's free loading is like Canada's. They know that the UK, France and Germany will act if something happens
The problem is that Canadians know that if it ever comes to serious war, we'll have time to work up to it.
@@blackoak4978unfortinatly the rest of the alliance might not have the time to wait for Canada to work it up and might suffer for it...
The faster we can act as a strong alliance the less destruction and losses there will be for al.
In the past smaller nation brings tributes for their protector, now bigger nations are just too nice to ask that of their protectorate. Maybe that needs to be implemented in terms of economic pressure or tariffs.
Or the US will act if something happens. Everyone knows who will do most of the fighting
Yeah, because that worked out so well for Belgium in the 20th century.
As a German living in Canada I must say I was glued to the screen hearing what is actually happening with these spendings. DANKE!
On the other hand, if Russia really penetrated as far as Berlin again, what use would NATO be anyway? It would have proven to be obviously useless.
i thought you guys were holed up in argentina
Just the unimaginative ones.@@kristoffseisler2163
It should be noted while its bad many are not spending 2% percent, but in reality if they were not in NATO in the first place they would be spending much less. So a nation spending 1% or 1.5% would be spending 0.2% like what Ireland spends.
It should also be noted that NATO spending is not just money thrown into a pot. every country spends on their own military, and every single country country spending more than the 2% due so for their geopolical aims, and very obvious what those are to. Like greece for example spends so much on military because turkey is always threatening to annex their islands. It was not for turkey they would not be meeting the 2%.
@@kristoffseisler2163 We are everywhere
As a Canadian this is frustrating and embarrassing
Frustrating and embarrassing describes Canada internationally *and* domestically.
What you Canadians think about NATO, US, EU and Security in Europe and at home? I mean, France Emmanuel Macron push for EU Army instead of NATO, which may not include UK, Turkey and other NATO countries (who are not part of EU), but may include Armenia, Georgia and Ukraine, which is why Macron lately made comments where he called western leaders to not be cowards in terms of help to Ukraine, but in case if Macron EU Army devour current NATO troops in EU, that would leave Canada, UK, Turkey and few other states in some kind of limbo without any security alliance
As an American, all I ask is you try to vote out the guy on top.
We have great respect and appreciation for our Canadians, and appreciation that a lot of money is spent on universal health care, something we don’t worry about. Having said that, it feels the people on top and potentially in the nation are complicit with relying on us militarily while also mocking us for where we struggle socially. No one person’s fault, but all I can ask of one person in a comment section is to try.
@@ness6099 Trudeau will lose this next election and Conservatives will be in. They support our military a bit more. Hopefully they show us by getting it to 2% this fall after the election
🇨🇦 - America's freeloading hat
As a Spanish, I hate that my government spend nothing on defence, because now is been proven that necessary to deterrence any aggression
Nothing? Clearly they are spending billions on defence, perhaps not enough in YOUR opinion, but billions more than nothing.
@@PNETriffid I googled.
Spain military spending/defense budget for 2021 was $19.54B, a 12.12% increase from 2020.
Spain military spending/defense budget for 2020 was $17.43B, a 1.41% increase from 2019.
Spain military spending/defense budget for 2019 was $17.19B, a 3.56% decline from 2018.
source: Macrotrends
@PNETriffid yea the Spanish armed forces is actually quite decent.
One point you missed.
Military spending is self reported, and nations count their spending differently.
When years ago, obama scolded the brits because they didn't spend enough, they went from 1.7% to 2.1% by adding pensions in the counting.
That is why SIPRI is usefull, as they have a common method of calculation.
Dear god 🤦♂️ what exactly does that entail counting pensions as part of the budget? Where does the money come from exactly? The pensioners?
@@JackspiringNo, it means Britain counts pensions given to retired service members as Defence spending.
The funny part is that USA also counts pensions as military spending, the UK changed to count it the same way as USA, proving that it had already been spending 2% according to US standards.
Yeah all this 2% crap is bullshit accounting and still people get all up in arms about it. What matters is capabilities.
@@freedomfighter22222Which is why a standard measure is needed, with or without pension to calculate how much is going on the military.
I suspect many countries are using other tricks to inflate the numbers.
Iceland is, by treaty, mandated to have no armed forces. Their contribution instead is the use of their island by NATO for basing and other logistics support.
That's rich! In WW2 Iceland was simply invaded by the UK. Only difference now is that Iceland has granted prior permission instead of protesting it 😂
Its geographical position in the North Atlantic does make it uniquely valuable strategically, so this seems like a reasonable deal given their entire population is something like just 350,000 - which is similar to the population of the London borough I live in.
@@fuseblower8128 Yeah I've been to Iceland a couple of times and heard the Icelandic take on this. Apparently the British army using Iceland as a base back then is known as "The Situation" in Icelandic history and the Icelandic men at the time resented it more than the women did because a lot of Icelandic ladies preferred the British soldiers to the local boys. 🤣
@@russetmantle1 😂😂😂 right... you really think women used to tall, blonde, bearded men with historic good hygiene would fancy little dorks with historic bad hygiene? This is hilarious 😂😂😂
@@russetmantle1 Close. The British actually only occupied the country from 1940-1941 and the defense of the country was handed over to the US. Icelandic women preferred American soldiers over Icelandic dudes.
Norway is also a unique scenario, it was at 1.9%+ spending in 2020 and has since increased spending, the reason it today is at a lower percentage of gdp isn't a lack of will to invest in its military it is because the gdp has increased at a ridiculous rate.
Had Norways income from natural gas not gone up so much since 2021 its military spending would be well above 2%.
Great point👍
@freedomfighter22222
I would like to "chime" in here with some more info on Norway.
The oil and gas money can not be used in Norway. It goes into the Norwegian Pension Fund that only invests abroad
(So we dont get inflation, we do however use 3% of the profits in that year tho).
So while the nation gets an artificial high GDP from oil and gas, the revenue from these companies dont go into the government for spending, it goes to the fund.
So when these "booms" from energy happens, the state has to effectively tax the population even more to reach the 2% for military.
Like it was said in the video, micronations with high GDP like Luxembourg spend more per capita.
I would argue that its the same for Norway with its 5,5mil people and big country that uses alot of money to patrol the seas of the world's second longest coastline. There is alot of infrastructure to maintain in rugged cold conditions, you need hospitals and roads to every corner and fjord. Building bridges/roads costs alot for such a small population. On top of that, we use roughly 325% more electricity per capita than that of Germany. Food security is expensive and heavily subsidised because there is so little farmland to operate on. So there really is not much more money to milk out of the taxpayer.
BUT, there is so much bullshit we use money on, the 4 billion Euros we spend each year (from taxpayers) in aid is ridiculous. We get reports all the time that after giving money some african dictator buys a new private Jet. We use billions on the poorest EU countries, 3.8 billion Euros goes into the EU (Most to Poland), every year until 2028 that equals the tax 42.000 Norwegians pay. We have 1mil people in public sector, 1mil pensioners, almost 1mil foreigners (many that dont work), kids and alot of sick people (because you can live of a disability in Norway). So in total, a 2% military spending on an inflated GDP would kill of the middle class in Norway, unless we drastically cut spending on aid abroad, and instead of using the oil money in other countries (Stocks/energy/infrastructure), use it for military needs (Buy jets and tanks from the US, that way the money cant cause inflation in Norway).
I think our GDP is on par with Sweden. But Sweden has almost 2x the population. So for us to use 2% would be the same as Sweden using 4%, or is my thinking wrong here? (Reflecting on the point in the video of US and its nr1 status on GDP and Germany with its 2% being more than the entire GDP of Estonia)
@@tcn9939couldn't you use the fund to invest as aid,it is after all, oberseas. Many nefarious banks lend money at humongous rates because nobody else will lend these countries money.
This would have 3 good effects.
1) this would allow you to cut your aid spending(which comes from your internal spending)
2)even undercutting the vampire bankers, this would still be extremely profitable.
3)cutting rates would really help in countries where every penny counts.
4)rates doesn't have to be as high as the risk, Norway could offer even lower rates as "aid" and still break even, (see point 1)
@@tcn9939while it would be waay fairer to make the numbers for gdp/capita in many ways, it makes sense in some others.
It is still VERY unlikely that anyone would attack Norway, but it would be a WAY more profitable target to attack than some other nations. You probably guessed it -> natural resources
If Finnland or basically any other nation close to Russia would have the natural resources of Norway, I can promise you that there would be not a war in Ukraine now, but rather in this country 😉
As a former Canadian infantryman who spent a month in Norway exercising near the Russian border, you know, in the middle of winter, above the Arctic circle...
I can attest that Norway takes its defence spending and military very seriously. Norwegians actually know what they're doing and they have tremendous capabilities.
So, that whole 2% of GDP number is so bogus, if you ask me. The only countries who look really good are the ones who have a sucky economy, low growth, stagnant population or who use their military budget to pay for all sorts of non-military stuff.
As a french, I was surprised to hear that we crossed the threshold this year.
Yes we have a sizable military force. Yes we can project - and we do project - our force far better and in places no other NATO member can, except the USA. Yes we have a very modern - and totally independent - nuclear arsenal, hence a credible nuclear deterrent. And finally yes we have an efficient military industry.
But we have stretched all these assets to the limits and often beyond it.
I spent my youth believing that the world could end at any moment’s notice in a bright nuclear flash. I don’t want the new generations to fear the same outcome. France has in its past paid the price of military complacency. It would be great not to learn the lesson the hard way again.
"Increasingly" embarrassing is an understatement for Canada. More like "insanely" embarrassing.
Especially with how heavily we’re taxed it’s an absolute joke.
As a Canadian, reading other "Canadians" like you crying about not spending to 2% are ignorant to our exceptional defensive geography. Pacific Ocean and the Rocky Mountains in the west. Atlantic Ocean and Canadian Shield in the east. Inhospitable north for the majority of the year and the Arctic Ocean. Not to mention NORAD and our proximity to the best military in the world. That said, I think the best place for defensive spending is on new nuclear submarines and a full-scale domestic drone program.
@@Stemsoup Yeah put Canadian in quotes cause I can’t be a real Canadian if I criticize my government for not doing something they committed to our allies ten years ago? It’s also funny you talk about our proximity to the best military in the world because that’s the mindset this video was actually talking about how we take for granted the protection of the United States. You should do a little more research pal.
@@Stemsoup /eyeroll Okay, chief.
@@traestormHe does have a point, military spending is all based on risk to one country, the risk to Canada and many EU countries is quite small, hence the lower military spending.
The US on the other hand wants to project power around the world, it uses military bases as a form of doing so, it's also got to contend with China, which by the way, is far bigger of a problem for the US then it is for other, being as China wants to take the number one spot in the world away from the US, that puts far more pressure on the US then it does on others.
As for the Europeans, part of boosting military spending is because of Putin warmongering, but if you ask a lot of Europeans, especially in the western part, they see the US as becoming more unstable, polarise and less trustworthy, so basically, Trump and Putin are doing wonders for the EU, but not for the reasons many think.
Russia is more of a risk to eastern European countries that are not in the EU or NATO, but Russia isn't really a risk to EU or NATO members, countries that are not in the EU or NATO are usually far poorest and a much easier target, EU and NATO countries both have a defence clause that an attack on one is an attack on all, so the risk to them is quite remote, but I understand why there's more panic in eastern EU countries, they were after all behind the iron curtain decades ago, but it's understandable with them, but for western countries, Russia isn't really seen as much of a threat to them, the US on the other hand, especial a Trump US is being seen as a far bigger threat.
So this isn't about European countries pulling their weight, this is more about an unstable, erratic US that's reshaping minds in Europe, as for what that will do to transatlantic relations, it's too early to say, but I do know one thing, the US is likely going to need a strong EU to contain China long term, the problem for the US is that they want European countries to spend more but as individual countries, not as a single EU entity, as that would be far more powerful than what any of the EU members can offer on their own, it would also compete more directly with the US in many areas, especially arms sales, which could force the US to either have to spend more or to cut the military budget if the EU is taking a slice of arms sales around the world, probably why the EU is focusing on arms production first, it basically boils down to a lack of trust in the US from a lot of Europeans, and if Trump were to get into power, that would be the icing on the cake the EU needs.
From a geopolitical sense, both the EU and US really need to stand together because of a rising China, because overall, we are not that different, but a Trump president would likely wreak any of that from happening, it could even get to the point of that NATO could fall apart if Trump had his way, which again would fall in line with pushing what the EU wants, after all public views are gaining traction of more EU military and forign policy matters thanks to Trump and Putin.
Well, technically, Russia is spending that money on OFFENCE, and not really on DEFENCE.
Russia best ally the winter is enough for defense
Countries today have this so-called 'image' to care for. There are no more Ministers of War and Ministers of Propaganda, like in the old days. The last time the US defended their teritory was in 1941, in Guam and Wake Islands. Since then the D.O.D. or the Departament of Defense spent about 50 trillions dollars, and never defended (unless you consider a good offense is the best defense)
Excellent (mini) documentary and I certainly feel a lot less ignorant of the specifics involved than I did before watching this! Very interesting and nice to have the facts presented with some humour too. Very educational, thanks for that!
The thing with military spending is that it's meant to be prepared for the unknown, not react to events years after they transpire.
Or even right before, because by then it's too late.
The trouble is, in relatively pacifist democratic systems, being able to persuade the population not to vote for the other party if you spend more of their money on something they fail to understand why they need.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 "the other party" is a sign of the democratic sickness called the two-party system.
But yes, in relatively pacifist democratic nations, it is hard to persuade voters on military spending.
I believe this is a good thing, though. Nondemocracies are more likely to revere dominating others in general, and we see them aching more for war and conquest. Building up arms can be seen as a threat by others, which can spiral out of control. And there should be at least some pacifist forces in the world. We can't afford having wars every few decades forever.
It is good to be seen not to be constantly aching for war.
@@sergarlantyrell7847Canada is really bad for that. Its always the price not why we are buying it.
I'm glad so many fellow Canadians are in the comment section and feel the same as me
Take a minute send your MP and email about how you feel about this. it freaks them out because they are the only one that can fix it.
I wrote to Bill Blair, Trudeau and Poilievre's office too, Nothing but crickets.
@@ryantata6694 Did you think you would get a reply LOL But great job letting them know everyday Canadians are thinking about it
@@douglashowell8368 Actually, if the subject matter is important to them, yes, they will have a Minister respond.
Which is…?
I as Canadian armed forces member, its sad to not see the argument of the artic shipping routes not being brought up in our media...
No country on earth is going to attack Canada from the north.
I mean Trudeau and his government are not known for foresightedness, so it doesn't surprise me. He probably think realism is some sort of far-right evil
In Canada we really seem to have the attitude that "oh we'll never need to fight seriously ever again". Especially in my own family where its we are too poor, not enough people or the Americans will do it for us.
I assume you mean arctic? An artic is a vehicle.
Don't wait for the MAIN STREET MEDIA. THEY"RE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR.
Thanks!
Before Russia's invasion, I don't think the world would've been confortable with headlines like "Germany to increase military spending".
That's true lol. They don't just go to war with its neighbour, they take on the whole world, two times.
Germany is a very different country these days nothing like the nazi era, its wrong to tar modern Germany with Hitlers Germany
Other european countries demanded Germany to increase military spending. Would've never happened if russia did not do the stupid.
Only in memes but not in reality I'd say. I don't think the leaders of germany today are some sort of megalomaniac dictators
Has there been a time when there would be no good reason for Germany to spend more on the military? Not in the last couple of decades atleast
-2014 Russia invaded Ukraine, but pretended like they didn't
-2008 Russia invaded Georgia
-War on Terror and European countries helping out America with this quest
As a Canadian... its us. Yes, we are always willing to help out (some others don't, that's for sure), but our actual budget is just sad.
My guess is everyone else would be happy if we simply spent enough to secure our own arctic.
We need Warcrime Canada back 😢
If they changed the names to "rainbow bullets" and "diversity tanks" our current government might wake up on the issue.
We need Tru-dumbass out!
@chriskola3822 that would just make them spend less, considering the cons are likely (very sadly) to take control next.
Do you think a change in PM would make a difference? As an American it seems like JT is very weak, but perhaps it was the same under Harper etc. genuinely curious.
Finnish chief of defense forces says that 2% of GDP is not enough for Europeans (and I think Canada should be included in that), he says that they should spend more than that because 2% was for peace time spending but we are now in a different world than what it was when that 2% of GDP was decided.
@@mumu8727 nato has not started anything, Russia would not exist anymore if nato had started war
@jk8557 , look what they did to the people in Irak.
You said: "They will not exist anymore"
That is what you fear.
They who has the power over you, they can read everything you write, they can block your bank account, they can get you fired, they control the mass media, they can remove you from internet, they can eliminate you like they did to Assange, Seth rich, Snowden and Gonzalo lira.
You prefer to join them and you hope that they will save you.
It is called the Stockholms syndrome.
they should be spending at least 3% imo
@@zhcultivator no less than 4% imo
@@jk8557 You'd be surprised what that would do to the rest of the country. See America's healthcare and education for comparison and they only spend 3.4%.
I know Australia isn’t in nato, but in 22/23 we spent 2.11% on Defence which was about 48billion. Here in 23/24 financial it’s slipped to 2.04% but actually increased to $53billion almost a billion of which is being spent on a loyal wingman program that will pay dividends because most of our allies have either expressed interest or outright purchased the MQ28 ghost bat. I believe America jumped so hard at the development that even Australia and all americas currently purchasing allies wont have as many as the American.
1:10 - Chapter 1 - Paying dues
5:50 - Chapter 2 - Counting beans
8:45 - Chapter 3 - Best in class
12:55 - Chapter 4 - The laggards
17:45 - Chapter 5 - The freeriders
This should be the pinned comment
@@brianjonker510If it was in the description it would divide the video in its sections, even better
@@diego5079 Thanks for doing the good work. Unfortunately, I think many channels decide against it b/c it apparently hurts viewing retention, which is important for ad revenue. :(
If it cuts down revenue, then good. Eight and a half minutes of ramblings is bad. The guy (Simon Whistler) couldn't summarize a PB&J sandwich in under three minutes.
Was Austria mentioned? Is it not in NATO?
I would like to point out at that at the time of German reunification when the east and west German armies merged, Germanys standing military was somewhere 1 million personnel+ and France and Great Britain were absolutely terrified and wouldn’t agree to reunification without significant decreases in German military capability, this is to some extant the inevitable outcome to that
I mean who could blame them tbf xD trust is earned and i think we are on a good way there, it hasn‘t even been 100 years after all
Thats simply not true. Thatcher was against reunification of Germany in the form as it stood, because it was deemed too much, too soon, much the same way that if ever the two Korea's unite, the plan would take decades. As it turned out, Germany is still battling with regional debt that can trace its way back to the late 90s where Berlin declared bankruptcy literally dozens of times. Also, look at the cultural differences between east and west Germany. Start off by looking at their voting intentions. The country is split in 2.
1990. I remember this. U.S. newspapers, even my own parents, were very concerned what a reunified Germany would do.
Dammit, they got us into two world wars.
The European Union had as a primary concern to tie German interests to ALL European countries, so they'd be shooting themselves in the foot to start WW III.
@@the_godfather9974I could blame them . the son should not have to pay for the sins of his father.
@@Olliebobalongthat is not what over 75% of people in germany think.
As a Canadian veteran, it p***** me off that my country, Canada doesn't spend enough on its military
Ветеран? А кто и когда напал на Канаду?
Considering that most of the Geneva Convention only exists because of acts Canadian soldiers committed. Canada not going overboard with its military is not such a bad thing.
it piss you off?
@@Iskelderonyou mean the Geneva Suggestions... Right?
@user-qj3rk4tu5p a "veteran" is anyone who served in their countries Armed Forces. Yes, some Veterans were serving during less demanding times for their particular country, but (God Damn It!) they served! I, for one, served in the US Navy from 1987 to 2011. Never did I, or any of the ships I was stationed on, fire a weapon in "anger"... I jokingly say: " For 23 years, I effectively evaded all Combat Situations". Am I not a Veteran?
I would like you to explore this Arctic thing in a detailed video, Simon. It intrigues me and pushes my curious buttons.
Agree!
its so soothing to watch this channel.
the amount of well researched and awesomely produced vids you are pumping out almost daily puts billion dollar media outlets to shame
The U.S. didn't enact Article V after 9-11. The other NATO allies did. This is important to note that it wasn't the U.S. coming to the aid of Europe, as one might assume would happen, it Europe coming to the aid of the U.S.
@@icu17siberia Article V has to be unanimous. So to say the U.S. invoked Article V is factually incorrect, NATO invoked it. I just retired from NATO.
@@clintoncarroll3400 When people say that the US invoked Article 5, I'm pretty sure that they mean that the US communicated that it had been attacked in a way that meets the criteria for collective defense mentioned in Article 5 (and subsequently the North Atlantic Council agreed).
@@seneca983 the motion was brought to the NAC by the SecGen. It’s fine margins but I just wanted to make a clarification that the US did not invoke it and drag NATO into something, that’s all I was saying.
Who would have known?? An error in this bald grifters videos??
@@clintoncarroll3400not all members were engaged in Afghanistan either. German constitution prevented sending offensive forces outside its borders. They send support troops instead.
To be fair on Luxembourg we are forming a new regiment and buying our first ever tanks, with a plan to reach 2%. The new regiment is joint with Belgium, so their stats should improve a bit too with this.
good on you 😅 actually kinda cute
i've once heard belgium described like "a place where europeans, especially france and germany, could go to settle their differences." it's crazy how short some nations' memory is.
I think they like their status as Europe's Miami.
I don't think Germany and France is going to go settle any differences in the near future.
Saying Belgium should have a strong military to defend itself against Germany and France is idiotic.
@@freedomfighter22222 if only because the strongest possible Belgium still wouldn't stand a chance.
You'd think Belgium would know better after the 2nd World War.
@@pennymayphilip9646 was that really Belgium's lesson? Would a 2% GDP military in Belgium have been the thing that stopped the Nazis? Or was the leason side with Germany next time?
A lot of Americans think of Europe as lazy dullards that depend on America for defense but also feel it's their right to criticize our methods and life style. Most Americans tune out Euro criticism. But it's very heart warming to see European countries not willing to let America have all the fun. We couldn't be more proud to call those nations allies or friends.
I dont know... France cant be trusted... Im Finn though so i might be biased
It's nothing to do with being lazy, it just that since the end of the Cold War, there's not really been any threat to European countries, especially western ones, the US on the other hand constantly sees threats all over the world, mainly China now, so they have to keep spending to project it's interest around the world.
Europeans on the other hand don't, but there is a divide, western European countries don't see Putin as a threat, whereas eastern Europeans do, a lot of the change that's going on in western EU countries is actually more to do with the US then it has with Russia, specifically, Trump, not Putin, so Putin got the ball rolling but most in the western European countries are more concerned with Trump, that's focusing minds, public views are changing as well as political views, Trump is also playing into the hands of what the EU wants, a single EU military, starting with arms production.
A single military would be a lot stronger than 27 individual ones, it would also cut out a lot of waste and duplications, there are good and bad points for the US on that, an EU military would be a lot stronger than any of the EU countries ones, it would give them a far bigger say on forign policy matters, the arms industry would very likely compete with the US arms industry on selling arms, so taking a slice away from US arms which could make US military spending even higher or that they might have to reduce spending, but on the plus side, as long as the EU and US are on friendly terms, they would be far more effective in containing China, but ultimately, an EU military would be a big win for Europeans, they wouldn't need to listen to the US, they can do their own thing, even if it's not in the interest of the US, and it would allow countries that want options around the world to choose sides or keep their options open, where now, the US is the only real option, there could in time be 2 credible options, that could reshape the world's geopolitical landscape in ways we can't see for now.
With that said, the EU and US are not that different from each other, so it's unlikely they would turn on each other and will likely be allies, but Europeans will likely not listen to the US as much in many areas and very likely not to do US bidding, which could be costly for the US as that would weaken US voice in Europe, whiles the EU offers the world an alternative voice, which I suspect a lot of countries around the world will find attractive.
But on the plus side for the US, it does mean they don't have to share the burden as much around the world and could spend less on its military, but it will also weaken US power around the world, there are trade-offs across all this.
In any case, another strong democracy can only be a good thing for the world with how unstable parts of the world are getting with the likes of Russia, China and what's going on in the Middle East, Africa.
Poles are the hardest working nation in the E.U not for no reason... The rest are sloppy snobs
A Europe that does not rely on America to come to its defense will be a stronger and more unified Europe. Trump being elected in 2016 has shattered any notion that the US can ever be relied on again as a stable ally as they would probably reneg on any sort of defensive alliance if they determine that not keeping their promise is more beneficial to them. And with Russia’s initial failing in the Ukraine invasion, other countries should also be thinking about if the US is in a similar situation. That for all their posturing about military might, they’re really just a paper tiger.
@RetroRadianceLight it's hard to tell even for us until we get tested by a major enemy. It would be wise not to rely on us entirely, as we will likely be extremely busy all over the world if nato goes to war
As a Canadian I'm ashamed with our government's neglect to our armed forces its not benefiting Canada its putting us all at risk
At risk of?
I disagree. Why is anyone going to attack you? The world would go after them if they did, due to the soft power you have from a lack of military. NZ has a similar strategy
As a Canadian I am utterly embarrassed of our military spend and the current state of our armed forces. It's imperative that we take action, regardless of the impact it may have on our personal taxes. The cost of neglecting our defense could be far greater in the event of an invasion, both financially and in terms of human lives. I sincerely hope that our present or future government recognizes the importance of actively participating in NATO and the invaluable security it provides.
As a Canadian, i remember when Toronto's mayor called in the military to shovel after a snow storm. So to everyone thinking Canada's military is incapable, think again 😂
But Canada beats Russia in Ice Hockey they battle in sports ;)
@@kohtalainenaliasCanadda POWER!
50+ years born & raised on this property here in Canada? This is THE FIRST TIME EVER, 'EVER' to have virtually No Snow this "Winter"? And all the world cares about is spending More BILLIONS on WAR?... You know we are FXXKED when☠
And for all the idiot comments that will say, YAY! NO SNOW! BE HAPPY!... I have Absolute Magical memories growing up With Winter that I would wish Every Child to be Blessed with, so STFU. Winter is Canada😇NOT American Warmongers👿
THE WORLD needs to get its Priorities Straight & Fast.
@@jagplaysroblox2169
ruclips.net/video/Frtft0LUMiE/видео.htmlsi=2B0cEdbWBdO9rwgE
Well if the next war involves snowmen... Canada will probably win.
So there is that.
In my opinion it should be also noted that military spending is not even the only factor that when it comes to nato contribution. Some countries still have conscription and training of troops definetly is cost to economy. It's not really seen as spending, as the conscripts don't get little money for it, but they still contribute greatly to defence of the alliance.
Also the likes of Germany are spending billions (in Germanies case some 0.6% GDP) on directly helping their allies economically develop. Which in turn makes it possible for the likes of Poland, to spend big on defense.
So Germany is not meeting the 2% goal, all the while making it possible for the likes of Poland to meet that 2% goal (and make the 2% actually mean something)
After all a GDP percentage is only impressive, if the GDP underpinning it, is impressive.
Half of Europe needed a lot of help, in making their GDP rebound. And Germany provided that help.
As a Turk I am pleasantly surprised that we'll be going over 4% next year and given the ambitious new military projects we got into and the new purchases we made, it makes sense. However I doubt the spending will go that high considering the economy is in shambles right now. I think 3% or just above 3% is realistically achievable.
Also imported parts are going to be stupid expensive
@@jyy9624 before even considering import parts there's the 40 brand new F16's and 79 modernization packages that were bought from the US last month and don't forget the shit load of ammunition also bought for them. There goes my tax dollars lol
also turk, totally agree. big ambitious military development projects (like the 5th gen fighter) are great ways to spend money and keep it in the country, but it creates little short term benefit in terms of extra firepower.
Truth is, Turks can spend less to get more if its homemade. Because of purchasing power. So for drones, salary etc, its a win.
Obviously, for imported weapons, its more expensive if the economy is "in shambles" as you said.
As a French, i just wonder sometimes if Turks will agree to fight Russia. If they do, it will be way easier.
Well i do expect that Iran will side with Russia, and Türkiye probably against Iran.
What do you think ?
@@YmirLucius
We are not going to fight against either Russia or Iran. Ukraine war or any possible war in Europa is not our war. We have many problems with Russia and Iran, but we can also talk with them. America and France is more threat and we can not talk with them. They only accept their own solution and such western countries are the ones who put embargo on us and militarily support our enemies. Sorry, you maybe a good man but our countries are not allies or friends.
More people need to see videos like this. Thank you for making it
Georgia before 2008 war used to spend almost 8% GDP on it's military, so if it was admitted back in the day, then it would've been largest spender in all of Alliance. Pre-war Ukraine used to spend 3% of it's GPD on military, now since invasion they have increased it literally tenfold with over 30% being spent on military.
But Georgia got it's ass kicked by Russia 😂😂
@@JDDC-tq7qm You are literally 14
@@hatman3445 and you must be 10 what's wrong did I hurt your feelings but saying the truth 🤣😂
@@JDDC-tq7qm True because spending doesn't equal victory when you're outclassed by that much. But that's Russia's fault.
@@MrBrock314 that fool can't accept that despite Georgia spending high GDP on military it still got defeated by Russia which is pretty funny 🤣
I see a Warographics notification and I click. Never disappointed. 8:45 I remember that clip on Poland, I save all these in a Playlist.
18:50 "We're looking at these figures Belgium, and it's not a mistake, it's a piss take!" - Poland lol
The NATO Pisstakers - appearing at Glastonbury in 2024
Singing their chart topping hit “The One Percenters”
I live in Canada, a country whose Prime Minister openly admitted, will never reach the 2% of GDP military spending threshold. If Article 5 is triggered, whoever is depending on Canada may as well raise a white flag. If meeting the 2% of GDP military spending threshold helped in vote whoring, our Prime Minister would be spending 4% of GDP. If you choose to be in an alliance it involves certain obligations and responsibilities, meet them or leave.
I pray for yalls next pmo election whenever that may be
The problem with the 2% GDP spending is.
We lack recruits to spend on.
Seriously, you need men before you need gear.
We have gear. (hell, we just gave the dozen or so Leopard 2 we have to Ukraine).
Join the army/Navy if you are concerned about the 2% and PM.
Conservatives lie by the way.
The real sad part is that there really is no political will across the board to fund the Canadian military in a meaningful way. My own mp (a conservative) told me that although funding the armed forces is important it would not be on the list of priorities for their government, further just kicking the can down the road.
Don't worry friend. No on is depending on Canada.
@petertong572 i have been trying to join the army but they don't make it easy for someone with a family to participate! More budget will give better oportunities for training, gear etc etc
I'm so frustrated that Canada is in its current state. So many of our family has served proudly and they feel their sacrifice has been so devalued. It's time for us to do better.
"Oh Canada. I hope America stands on guard for thee"
It is shameful that Canada has never met the 2% GDP but spending money is not the answer, until procurement process is improved it is basically throwing money into a large deep hole, which helps no one
Thank you Simon for educating people on important issues.
No mention of Ireland Austria and Switzerland who contribute nothing.
As a UK resident who has a fair amount of family and friends, who have served or still serve in the Armed Forces, I think our preparation for a potential conflict with Russia or China is abysmal. The munitions state is bad enough but even worse, every battalion, ship and squadron, with the exception of the Gurkha Brigade is below strength. So much so that the outgoing Chief of Staff suggested conscripting 500,000 people to fill vacancies.
While the size of the British army is the smallest it’s been in over two centuries, it is worth bearing in mind that historically Britain has always had a small ground force, mobilising the nation and drafting civilians in wartime. The Royal Navy is and has always been the prowess of the UK. That being said, the UK does need to build its ground forces if it wishes to be of any practical use in a large scale conventional conflict - such as the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
The problem is a nation of people who have forgotten that freedom always has to be paid for in blood. Our society is weak. Frankly unless entitled whining becomes a weapon I'm not sure what conscripting people will achieve. On the other hand, I'm in my mid-forties and apparently too old now. I'd rather be trained and not needed, than needed and not trained. National service would be a good thing. It never hurts to be prepared. Also I think making the possibility of war 'real' for the youth might help them with self discipline and priorities.
The Sunak Government won't spend more until the Armed Forces start proving they will spend it wisely. How many procurements have been on-budget and on-time? Too many suits, not enough boots. Need to copy Poland's procurement model. Also, with an election due, military spending doesn't win votes compared to Healthcare...
We can conscript all these boat people who come here and love the UK so much! :)
2 birds one stone.
@@Whoami691 Yeah get people to do the fighting for you whilst you sit on your arse spouting nonsense. Immigrants already harvest your food and do the dirty jobs Brits won't do and will pay for your pension. In the meantime the Tories cream off billions to their mates, hide even more in offshore accounts to avoid tax (that would pay for military spending), and spend more billions on the projects that the Armed Forces didn't want.
As a Canadian, I am embarrassed. We waste plenty
"Oh Canada, I hope America stands on guard for thee"
Yeah, instead of thinking about what the alliance should do for Canada you should be thinking what you could do for the whole alliance.
It would be nice to have a government in Canada that funds our military properly. Although, there doesn't seem to be any realistic prospects for that at the moment.
Thing with Norway spending is that their GDP probably increased in the last few years due to the increased gas and oil revenues. And then the defense spending might not increase the same, making the percentage decrease.
This 2% guideline is alittle weird for Norway. In 2020 we spent 2.01% on the military. But 3 years later our GDP was 33,5% higher because Russia was cut of as an energy supplier and we took over. Even tho we upped our budget (budgets are made before we know how much the GDP will be) from 7,27 billion USD to 9,08 billion in 2023 it was still to little and we only managed 1,67% that year. If we had said no to supplying the EU with energy and kept our GDP on 2020 levels we would have used 2,5% of GDP in 2023.
The thing is, all the oil and gas money goes into the National Pensions fund. This fund invests all of it abroad to not cause inflation in our small economy of 5,5mil inhabitants. The defence budget is paid for over the taxation of the citizens, but we lack almost all the funds from oil/gas. This means we per capita use a lot more than others.
Finland is of same population as Norway, so i will compare the both. They only had 297 billion USD in GDP in 2023. While we had 482 billion USD.
According to Statistics Finland, the average salary is 47,688 EUR per year.
According to Statistics Norway, the average salary in Norway is 55,939 EUR per year.
That is only a 17% difference in pay. But to cover the 2% guideline Norwegians would have to pay 62,29% more than Fins to reach the 2% goal. All because we have a artificially high GDP.
@@tcn9939 "The defence budget is paid for over the taxation of the citizens, but we lack almost all the funds from oil/gas. This means we per capita use a lot more than others.
"
A very decent chunk of the budget in Norway are dividends from the oil fund. iirc approximately 1/3rd. The dividends from the oil fund puts your entire economy on steroids
@@siffran123 The national pension fund (The oil fund) does not pay out any significant amount. We can use 3% of the profits the fund makes in one year (Some incorrectly believe we can use 3% of the entire fund every year). The problem here is that you have to wait a year to find out how much you can take out.
@@tcn9939 You are spot on, but unfortunately this is difficult for some to comprehend.
Last time Poland increased it's military spending so rapidly to such a high level was 1936-1939.
THANK YOU FOR SHARING!
I’m from Virginia and I didn’t know these issues were really at stake. I assumed we’re southern enough to not worry about that, but this goes to show what not voting will do.
People forget that Canada is EFFICIENT. Almost ridiculously so. The main inputs to military spending are 100% local to Canada. Trucks, tanks, bullets and electronics are made cheaply, and WELL here. Training, research, patents etc are all local as well, and exports not imports.
Unlike most countries that have to pay for US or German products in cash Canada has a trade surplus with the USA and buys almost nothing from anyone else. America pays Canada, in Canadian dollars. This is literally unique in the world. The exchange rate alone accounts for about half the target spending deficit. Canada is less riding on US coat tails, & more the Tailor and Thread Products Ltd that makes those coats to begin with. Trump was literally ignorant of that, while all other US presidents have actually consulted the books in detail.
The spending target was based on traditional swords while we are mass producers of razor blades... the throats of the enemy cannot tell the difference.
You are delusional. How can Canada be so efficient and yet the least productive in the G7?
Our procurement system and record of procurement could well be a standard textbook of what NOT to DO.
Our fighter jets are from the 1980's. Our frigates are the same. We used to have destroyers in the 70's. Now, none. The last frigate build in Canada was about 50 years ago. Our tanks are 30 years old and we had to buy expendable ones from other countries for spare parts. We bought 4 used submarines from the UK. They have been a disaster. Not sure if any of them are even sea worthy. We have to rent a commercial ship to act as a fleet replenishment ship.
We had a proud military history. Recently, they closed down and mothballed the trainer jets for fighter pilots. We have to send our pilots to other countries to be trained for flying the F35 which should be coming to Canada in the next 20 years. Same with the proposed subs. Over the next 20 years. New tanks not even talked about. The big frigate project that was announced in 2015 or 2016 has yet to cut steel for the first frigate. Yes, that's how good our procurement system and record is.
I would like to have a response!
As a Canadian, I think we should be able to self defend, especially in the arctic. We should rival Russia for arctic power, if not exceed them. I’d rather my taxes go there than arrivescam apps and Trudeau’s sock collection.
"Oh Canada. I hope America stands on guard for thee"
Eventually Trudeau will welcome Putin to join the marxism heaven... a k a Hell.
There's no hope about it. It is an absolute certainty.
What Trump said, although pretty bluntly put, makes absolute sense. 2% is a pretty reasonable military spending, particularly for advanced economies such as those in NATO. To say 'okay, but I prefer to spend it elsewhere' is an insult to other member states, which are paying 2% or more for military, so there's the moral issue with it. And in practice, in case of war, commitment should be proportional. Why take advantage of the military of other countries, that are spending more than you? And ultimately, if you think there's no chance you'll ever be in danger, and don't want to spend, then leave NATO.
Nato was created to protect Europe, not the US. If the Europeans won't spend their monies to protect themselves then as Trump said then why should the US do it.
I agree -- and I believe that is what Trump is going to do - if/when - he returns to the White House - - - he will pull the US out of NATO & let the rest of them face Putin on their own !!! --?-- A "fair" way of finally solving the problem - eh ? - - - As a US citizen - I hope he throws the UN the hell out of our country also !!! > They belong in Brussels.
@@SeattlePioneerDo you have a slightest idea why The US joined the war against the nazis in WW2?
@@daimonien
My earlier post:
Your reply:
That was more than eighty years ago.
Let's suppose that was a good idea. Let's further suppose that the American effort to contain Soviet Expansion after WWII was a good idea.
The Soviet Union dissolved more that THIRTY YEARS AGO!
American foreign policy since then proves, I think. that the American World Empire we continue to main tain is a MISTAKE. The United States is NOT the policeman of the world, and frankly, we don't have the WISDOM to tell everyone else in the world what they must and must not do,.
Bring our military and navy home NOW! The world will, you know, sort out it's own problems without us. It ALWAYS will.
Canadian vet here. We are totally underfunded. But yet, the government have the courtesy to put free tampons in men washroom. Go figure. Trudeau must go.
There should be tampons in all washrooms also it was a thing before Trudeau won’t change with the conservatives
😂😂😂😂
I feel it should be noted, while there was no goal or expectation for 2% until the early 2000s, *it also wasn't a significant issue until then to.*
During the cold war, an overwhelming majority of members far exceeded a 2% threshold. NATO & free Europe as a whole was preparing for the very serious Soviet invasion threat.
However, with the fall of the USSR budgets got astronomically cut with many members going from contributing to NATO for defense, to solely relying on it for defense.
"Why spend money on tanks that will never see service when Uncle Sam and Aunt NATO have your back?"
Which, to be fair is somewhat understandable. Who exactly do Czechie have to worry about invading? Or Belgium. Most of Europe has buffer states for their buffer states.
The Canadian military recently had its budget slashed by $1 billion. This amidst our terrible retention/recruitment problem
50+ years born & raised on this property here in Canada? This is THE FIRST TIME EVER, 'EVER' to have virtually No Snow this "Winter"? And all the world cares about is spending More BILLIONS on WAR?... You know we are FXXKED when☠
And for all the idiot comments that will say, YAY! NO SNOW! BE HAPPY!... I have Absolute Magical memories growing up With Winter that I would wish Every Child to be Blessed with, so STFU. Winter is Canada😇NOT American Warmongers👿
THE WORLD needs to get its Priorities Straight & Fast.
Our military is lacking, our Healthcare is shit, our infrastructure is crumbling. Where the fuck is all the money we pay going?
@@ryeguy7941 Partially - COVID payments that kept a lot of people afloat during the pandemic. But, our healthcare is actually pretty good (comparatively) - the wait lines just suck.
@MrBrock314 I just lost my doctor of 25 years, but please go on, on how our healthcare system is good.
@@ryeguy7941i would consider the fact that you can get good healthcare without hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt to be a good thimg
Even without the US Russia is hopelessly outmatched to the Europe of yesterday.
how would Europe fair in war with Russia?
@@b6yg That isn't a reasonable question, Europe has a far larger military, far larger population, vastly larger economy and controls the ocean access to the Russian heartlands.
Russia does not compare to Europe in anything but land mass, in everything else it compares to individual countries in Europe.
Frankly the Russian military is irrelevant to the question, an economist or demographics specialist could tell you who wins a war between Europe and Russia just like they could tell you USA would win against Japan in ww2, when it comes down to it Europe simply has the capabilities to replace loses at a level Russia can't compete with.
Which is why every "Russia could invade!" scenario either assumes Russia would be able to mobilize 3 million men over night or assumes Russia would take the Baltic states and then Europe would just act like nothing happened.
Because any scenario based in reality doesn't show Russia as a threat so they are pointless for the "Russia strong" and "Europe doesn't spend enough on defense" crowds to peddle.
A war between Europe and Russia would take place solely on Russian soil.
@@freedomfighter22222 Russia only still exists because of nuclear weapons.
@@freedomfighter22222the only deterrant Russia has is the nuclear one.
Would explain why the first Nato nation that would dare to attempt to send troop is the only other fully autonomous nuclear power besides the US in Nato, since even if its a fraction of the nukes its largely enough to nuke Moscow and St-petersburg the 2 area where most of the Population is centered around, rest being so small in terms of density its worthless
Thanks for covering European things for US people unbiased, Greetings from Finland!
Cheers from Poland to other NATO countries!
We learned one thing in the past:
"Can you count? Count on yourself!".
Of course we will help our partners if there will be a problem and we'd like to be protected by our allies too.
2% also helps maintain a certain size of defence industrial base which may be why Europe is relatively weak in DIB compared to the US. This is as a huge amount of spending goes to salaries and fixed admin costs while higher spending above a minimum goes more towards equipment and procurement. If Europe is to become a decent military weight then they need to start consolidating their DIB for economies of scale but this is unlikely to happen due to national champions. Germany's promises are interesting but until they sign contracts it's just words and we're almost 2 years since the 100bn promise and barely any of that has been spent.
Turkey and Greece have mandatory male conscription which is far cheaper to maintain large military forces.
@nath9091= DIB is the elephant in the room! When Trump clamors for the Europeans pulling their weight, the translation is: 'you don't buy enough American hardware'.
The logical thing for Europeans would be to buy European; and accessorily it would help the balance of payments & employment situations. There is a EU initiative to strengthen the European DIB; but the crux of the matter is that there is not enough political union in the EU for a EU country to accept depending entirely on the industrial output of another EU country for a major Defense system. Joint ventures are hard to establish and harder still to make a success.
This soon may change, since the US is now viewed as much less dependable as it used to be: a strong EU DIB now appears the only way forward.
XFinland has conscription too. Sweden has reinstated conscription some years back, women too. Sweden has a total defence by law. So people in the civil defence are important. Like health care workers. Sweden has also increased by law to 7 days, that citizens need to take care of themselves.
Absolutely true. We have to see some action real soon. Enough talk and pledges.
Luckily Europe is home to some of the largest auto and aircraft manufacturers in the world. We should leverage that industrial power in creating a strong military industrial sector.
The past 5 years Canada has made budget cuts to our military and we are truly suffering to make anything work as a result. It's a absolute joke
Same here in the UK we build 2 new aircraft carriers that can't even get out of port without breaking down
@@ianclegg9572 I'm from Canada, we haven't had one of those since WW2. Want to hear about our submarines ? They used to be yours !!
@@ryantata6694The Bonaventure was from the 50's and we didn't need it. The subs are a problem though.
Surely budget cuts to a useless Canadian military can benefit real Canadians with extra spending on Canadian infrastructure and healthcare??? I don't see anyone about to invade Canada.... although the US had plans to invade in the past... not sure how Canada could stop US military crossing the border though.
@@ianclegg9572 Why not spend the money on the NHS and policing. Have you ever been to your local police station recently... they replaced staff with a telephone. Most police in the UK are only active with speed cameras, because tackling crime and anti-social behaviour costs money, compared to speeding fines when you drive 2 miles above the speed limit
It’s literally not a 2% rule it is a suggestion and no where in NATO is it written. It was a spending concept that was discussed and recommended.
As a Swede i just have to say is it 32 member countries not 31
I was a member of the 1st CSOR of the Canadian Armed Forces and I only flew on American aircraft, when I deployed I was always assigned to JSOC...essentially, I showed up with my body and uniform, also my weapons, but a couple times, I was told to choose if I wanted my issued weapons or pick from the American SF Catalog....well that is like taking a kid to all the toy manufacturers and saying "Take anything you want"! So, in 1993 I defected from Canada to the USA and enlisted in what is commonly known as Green Berets (19th Group) and served until medically retired in 2007. My sons both serve currently in the US Military (oldest in Army CBRN as a Captain and the youngest in Naval Special Warfare as a PO2....he was e3 enlisting, so by the time he graduated SQT and got to his platoon it was almost 3 years along before he even was ready to deploy).
You sound like a much better fit for US "culture" than Canadian. Not too many gun nuts in Canada are there
As a Canadian I am embarrassed and will vote accordingly.
"Oh Canada. I hope America stands on guard for thee"
It will not change.
The problem is that none of the parties will do anything other than talk a big game.
who will make it better?
Canada (and Mexico too) knows that if anyone touched it, the US would intervene so fast that it's not even funny
All of N America. = "Too close for comfort."
No we wouldn't. Central America is part of the North American continent and we ignore all of problems they have. Mexico will be treated the same. Canada can lose its artic shipping routes before we even care.
TBF USA will never let Russia of even China for that fact even try to ''encroach''( for lack of a better term) on Canadian territory. and do you really think america would just let go of the artic? not a chance, i would bet they will just take it for themselves shoud the situation arise@@brianb5543
@@brianb5543You are 100% off the mark. No major actor would fuck with America's sphere of influence without the USA stepping in hard.
@@brianb5543lol America would care if someone touched Canada your insane to think otherwise Mexico is debatable but Canada is absolute
As an American I would go easy on criticism of Germany "under-spending" on defense until recently. After WWII the US invested in shaping a pacifistic Germany that had little reason or enthusiasm for building a strong military.
Also, for a bigger picture: Germany shouldered the heaviest burden of the cold war, hot war scenarios all played on German soil, and Germany spent above 3% of GDP until 1983. The defence cuts and long term gas contracts with Russia initially were meant to overcome the cold war and support Russia to open up to Europe. The intention was soon forgotten on both sides though, and from there it went just downhill. And Russian uge efforts of manipulation and infiltration in Germany never stopped after the cold war was declared over...
As a Belgian, yes we are nato freeriders, but keep in mind we are in a rather safe position wich has led to this. Non nato members as swiss and austria are even spending less on their military (1 and 0,76% of gdp) . But i agree, if you are in a club, you should follow the rules
I’m Canadian and we are SOOOO proud of our military history in WW1 & 2, and in Korea. We are proud of our tradition of international peace keeping. We are proud of being among USA and NATO Allies in Afghanistan from 2001-2014, completing peacekeeping, combat and training roles and assuming various NATO Leadership roles. We were peacekeepers in Rwanda. Ow we have a teeny tiny military of 100, 000 including reservists. Our prime minister says we will never reach 2%? His father Pierre Trudeau was widely criticized for making military spending cuts and n the early 1970’s, but throughout his time in office, spending remained close to 2% of GDP. I don’t blame Justin Trudeau for how low our spending is now, just for not responding to the NATO call for increased spending since NATO is now very much on a war footing in support of Ukraine and increasing threat to NATO allies in Western Europe. Also, as Arctic sea ice retreats every year, CANADIAN security in our Arctic Territory will be in ever increasing security risk and we can’t realistically expect NATO and particularly the USA to do all the heavy lifting on our behalf. Canada should take the example of Poland with a similar population and an economy approximately 1/3 of Canada’s. Poland has an army much larger than Canada’s and is increasing spending closer to 4%GDP. Surely Canada can manage 2%?
"Oh Canada, I hope America stands on guard for thee"
Since we refuse to buy ships from other countries we are constrained by a lack of capacity to build more. We have 6 Arctic patrol ships in the process of construction and commissioning at the moment. After that the frigate program will occupy the construction yards in Halifax for about 20 years. Perhaps the Pacific yards could be used to build more robust arctic warships in the future if the money could ever be found, but even then Seaspan is still finishing up with the at sea replenishment ships and then has a number of Coast Guard ships on order.
Trudeau is the worst thing to happen to Canada, thankfully he will be gone soon
@@davidrentonyou misspelled Harper
@@kevinw2592 "If the election was held today, the Conservatives would get 40 per cent of the ballot support marking a 15-point lead over the Liberals, who are at 24.7 per cent ballot support."
Trudeu better update his resume, doubt that would help
When being up that trump quote you failed to mention that he said it at a time when only 5 nato countries were meeting the GDP and it was in an internal nato only meeting. After which spending did increase for countries next to russia.
I agrre with Trump almost never. But he was right about this and China. Not sure about the middle east but i guess we will see how that shakes out. And let's me honest he didn't understand foreign policy he just had some decent advisors
I greatly dislike Trump, but him putting the pressure on NATO was good
Yeah Germany never did shit for 40 years now they are finally spending too. It's funny because they whine like us now too.
This was a quote he said just a few weeks ago at a rally not in a nato meeting. And so at that point a large majority are paying their way. And even if not him saying we won’t defend them is wrong because they are still protected under article 5
@@tsdocholiday8965No it was from a nato meeting in 2016. Its in the news recently because at a rally he retold the story of how he said that in a Nato meeting. Also "large majority" are not paying their way not in 2016 when he said it and not today.
I find your description more exhaustive and deep than many international media press.
But like Italian who I am I had to exempt a pair of news for a more interesting and real analysis:
1) Italy have one of the biggest public debt in the world and can't exceed his actual defence budget funds without consequences on public finances.
2) Never than less, Italy have one of the strongest, more operational and best equipped Air force and Navy in all European continent.
3) Over that, Italy in the last over twenty years has spent in international operations more than many other NATO countries .
It's partecipations starts with the operations in Congo in the sixties, in the seventies in the Persian Gulf, Libano in 1982, Straight of Hormutz and Persian Gulf crisis, Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Iraq in 1990/1991, Somali operations 1992 (to now 2024!), in Mozambique in 1994, in Balcanians wars in the nineties , in Kosovo and Serbia war in 1998, Timor Est peace operations, Enduring Freedom and NATO ISAF missions in Afghanistan since 2001 to 2021, Iraqi Freedom and NATO mission since 2003 (to now 2024!), Libyan war in 2011, and many more operations that in some cases are on course by decades like the ONU naval mission in Red Sea that starts over forty years ago.
So probably Italy didn't spent so much in the last decades but it was really not a freerider and it's incorrect say that for sure.
!Quick correction with respect to Turkey's new budget! Total defence budget of Turkish Armed Forces is not $45 billion. In fact, Perun uploaded a video about this special case of budget spending with regard to Turkey. This budget includes Police Forces, Intelligence Forces, Turkish Gendarmerie Forces(Similar interior forces like in France), and Turkish Armed Forces. The main reason why the defense budget of the Turkish Armed Forces is below 2% of GDP is mostly due to the lack of foreign procurement and not being able to finalize mass production on their own products. Moreover, the TAF's defense budget does not come from a single line item, but also includes transfers from other sources such as the Turkish Armed Forces Foundation(TAFF), classified budgets and OYAK(different assets). Although an exact estimate of the budget cannot be made with regard to TAF, the budget was lower than it should have been due to embargo on foreign purchases and the fact that serial production agreements for their own products have not yet been finalized. I think this will increase due to tensions in the region because this year Turkey's defense budget (including the Turkish Armed Forces and other branches) has been authorized to exceed $45 billion as you said. It is reasonable to expect that this will increase periodically since US-TUR relations are restoring again from F16 procurement to possible re-entering F35 program. Side note: Turkey's Purchasing Power Parity is somewhat close to India and Russia than any other European states. So this type of budget spending parameters are really different for each country.
Yeah but NATO allows counting police forces, intelligence forces, paramilitary forces, etc. Finland undercounts its defense spending and doesn't include for example border guards (militarized paramilitary under ministry of interior), pensions, etc in its defense budget but if it included them then Finland also would spend close to 3% of GDP.
@@jk8557 Defence expenditure is defined by NATO as payments made by a national government (excluding regional, local and municipal authorities) specifically to meet the needs of its armed forces. So that is what NATO dictates, comparing this definition budget of Turkish Armed Forces are not $45 billion rather somewhat close to $20 billion. Similar thing could be applied Finland. However like I said, this type of defence spending budget comparison literally meaningless.
Perun is superb - he get the humour and the information just right - chefs kiss.
@@Chilled_Mackers Yes he's literally always dig into evey bit of information to support the idea :)
Throughout my naval career, I never saw a single Canadian ship, plane, soldier, sailor, or airman at any U.S. ports, but did see at least 20 other nations. Do they even have a Navy?
But have you ever seen Canadians teaching US pilots etc..? They do.
A pathetically small one that wiuldn't even amount to a task force, much less a proper navy.
And that's even if you include litorral ships that can't even operate outside coastal waters.
Meanwhile, once upon a time after WW2, we had the 4th most powerful military in the world.
And we did it with a pop of 11 million. We are more than capable of it again. If it weren't for the dipshits comitted to being parasites and think being able to defend yourself and allies is jingoistic.
I saw a Canadian airman while I was stationed in Korea. He had a pretty nice beard and I was very jealous 😂
If you look at a map you might notice that unlike European nations Canada already has ports in North America...
Of course you are seeing European ships in US ports but not Canadian ones, the Europeans don't have home ports in the area so they have to dock in US and Canadian ports.
We technically do but the only place youll ever see it is moored up at the ship yards while they wait for funding or ebay parts to fix them an no im not kidding, thats an actual fact
Fair assessments... Now, it actually takes even more nuances (such a broad topic...) So, as French (FR/US, actually), may I add a few points (positive and negative) about France?
- Since Macron came to power (2017), budget increase was on the table, then implemented (2018), so no wonder France was at the 1,9 mark in 2022.
- Then, the Russian invasion sort of "boosted the boost".
- However. France is the 3rd largest arm exporter behind the US and Russia. And some experts predict it's already the second largest now. But, though the R&D is superb, the industrial capabilities fall behind. Good designers, not enough manufacturers. This is where we should invest much more. Esp. when investments are not just about our military, but also economic growth, exports, etc. Which should lead to an increase in domestic spending.
- So, all in all, the French military spending should accelerate much more. It's still lacking, in the industrial layer, though efforts are made. We're stuck in the "haute-couture" paradigm. Time to shift...
Sidenotes:
French nuclear deterrence is completely free of other nations' interference. While the UK's is bound to the US. So, what happens if the US do not condone, or withdraw? What is the UK voice as an anbiguous nuclear power? Can they have a doctrine of their own?
We have only one aircraft carrier (a shame). But it can operate with US planes, and French planes take off and land on US carriers (CATOBAR magic). This is a pointer. No other nations can experience the shared strength of "camaraderie". The NATO logo is bilingual, it also spells the French version, OTAN (look at it). So where we're at? Preparing for a US whithdrawal, with strong nations like Poland, possibly Italy (industrial powerhouse). Not willing to be the unique nuclear umbrella over Europe, unsure about Germany, too far behind.
Problem: We also have strong interests/presence in the Pacific. But, maybe we'll let our Canadian friends to step up.
OK, yes, we need to spend more...
Its also interesting to consider that France even prior to Ukraine was already on a modernisation plan of its army and navy and that it was still on schedule last i checked.
The sole problem as you said is that the program takes a long time because France screwed its military industry for high tech stuff, but hey the closer we get to 2030-5 the stronger France will be and with the war accelerating things it could finish early perhaps
Excellent delivery!
Ironic that Belgium is the location of NATO HQ. Also ironic that- doesn’t Canada have a border dispute or two with the USA and/ or Denmark somewhere in the Arctic?
Any American who wants the US to leave NATO should read this first (I am also American for context):
How much any country spends on NATO does not matter. The US spends more on sunk projects for its armed forces than it does on NATO regularly. Even if every country in NATO spent 1% of its GDP on the military, the US would get more out of what it pays for NATO right now (which isn't a ton) than it would out of any other military investment it has ever made in history in terms of strength and numbers. Now, as this video mentions most of NATO pays well above 1%. True, there are countries not meeting their goals, but that doesn't mean they're "not paying their bills" or something like that. Should they pay more? Probably. But it literally does not matter to America whether they do or not.
(in case you're curious though, the NATO common fund is not the same as military spending % of GDP, and is taken from all countries based on economy size. THIS is their "bill" and they all pay it to be in the alliance.)
Any country that attacks a NATO country would do so very well aware of Article 5. That means, they would know that they are also attacking the US. Any country willing to do something that stupid is already going to be a threat to the US: It is better that we can fight such a threat with literally 2 times the American GDP and triple its population. Even with mediocre spending right now, in a time of war that would change fast. Ukraine went from 3% to an astonishing 33% of its GDP spent on the military since the Russian invasion. Imagine the difference in military power that could be gained from an extra 25 TRILLION in GDP from all of NATO other than the US (which is another 25 trillion on its own). The combination of NATO forces literally doubles the effective strength of the United States. DOUBLES. And the US is already the most powerful country on Earth militarily speaking.
China on its own could be a threat to the US--not to the mainland yet, but certainly to our interests. Russia could be a threat with its thousands of nuclear weapons, and without US nuclear cover other states would be forced to gain their own nukes in order to deter that threat. This would mean more opportunity for rash deployment of such weapons than already exists, which is worse for everybody. With the US in NATO, there is literally no power on this earth, including the sum forces of the rest of the world (international GDP is only around 96 trillion including NATO) that would even stand a chance. The US is powerful but cannot take on the world alone if it had to. NATO can.
The idea that we should leave the alliance which has ensured security in Europe (among member nations) and between global superpowers for the greater part of a century is insane. It is even more insane that the reasoning is other countries "not paying enough" in defense spending, when they literally have zero incentive to do so: NATO is not at war, and they are not under serious threat because the more heavily armed NATO countries could easily hold back any threat as a quick reaction force while their economies shift to being war-based. There is this American ideal that everyone should be independent and the US shouldn't allow European countries to rely on it for their security, but that's the problem. It's a cultural issue we have. We gain unfathomably more out of NATO then we spend on it, it's fair enough that European nations can gain from it too. They are our allies, and in a war they would sacrifice their men and women to protect us just as we would do for them.
And that mutual agreement is what means that neither side will hopefully ever have to.
Edit: It's also worth pointing out that we don't pay more because other countries pay less. If we were not in NATO, any American knows darn well we would be spending the exact same amount on our military. That's just what America is like until we elect someone REALLY crazy. NATO doesn't affect how much we pay here in the US.
For a long time, the US did pay a lot of money for NATO. It's just like the UN which is another subject in itself. Is europe relied on the US. Yes I'm glad that they are finally waking up and smelling in the coffee. And yes, I think it would be foolish for the U.S. to leave NATO. They are our allies, and we share a lot of the technology between us, which is a good thing.
a little thing to add as a fellow European.. the article 5 was activated only once in the history of NATO and that was after the 9/11 attacks... NATO countries sent their troops to Afghanistan as a result... even my country(Slovakia) sent 430 men out of the total 64,500 troops in the ISAF - NATO coalition
I think that actually leaving nato would yes be a bad move tactically but threatening to do it as a negotiation tactic to get the negligent nations to wake up is fine. I think everyone knows the US wouldn’t actually pull out but I do respect it as a negotiating move so the us military isn’t acting as the worlds mercenary force when they get attacked and don’t have any troops of their own to deploy. That’s my gripe with nato is that much like the US government across the board, has no accountability. They’ve set a precedent that there’s not much you can do that will actually get you thrown out of the alliance so why do what you’re supposed to?
As a Belgian who cares about this, I would have to say the reasoning of Belgium not hitting the mark is completely misread. It's not because 'France will come to our rescue', it's that they think the US will. Even with Trump's remarks (again), they still believe steadfast that just like WW1 and WW2, the US will eventually come to the rescue. Most Belgians don't even realise we don't even reach the 2% mark (or didn't even reach 1% for years), and frankly, they don’t care at all or think this is a good thing.
Second and more importantly, is that there is no support amongst the population or politicians to invest in the military, and due to the nature of Belgian politics, the government is always a compromise of half a dozen parties who cuts defense spending whenever money is needed. If you bring this subject up, you will always get the same remarks:
- Who would attack Belgium? We're surrounded by allies!
- What can little small Belgium do? We can't match /insert name/!
- We don't need an army, we have NATO! (or less common: The US will defend us!)
- We already spend way too much on our military!
The problem is that most Belgians doesn’t care, nor want to cut any spending elsewhere (despite Belgium having a decent economy all things considered). Most also think that, rather than a combination of all the member's states militaries, NATO is an actual army of 'people from NATO'. There is just no knowledge of any military matters, nor how historically, our military always managed to do extremely well given it always had everything going against it.
Happy to rely on the US while at the same time there is a strong dislike for the US
You would think that after four years of brutal Nazi occupation Belgian wouldn't want to sit back and hope somebody else will protect you
what we should be cutting is the 8 or 9 governments we have in this bloody country and cutting all the pension of the government workers ,they never do anything useful.
we have the flemisch - walloon - german speaking part - 2 for brussels - national - 2 or 3 for europe and they are all working against each other and of course raising taxes every bloody year.
And as a result white belgiums will be foreigners in our own county in about 20 year when 60% of the population are bloody muslims
I'm sure there are support roles that Belgia could fill. Like buy in and operate some transport planes or something.
We're sitting on the largest amount of frozen Russian assets, more than any other country.
The European powers won't ever reach much of an agreement or foreign policy, just look at how both Macron and Scholz are making a fool of themselves, constantly turning their words around.
They couldn't even organize a picnic without some Belgian or other small country intermediating. Not in politics and most definitely not when it comes to decisive military action.
They are all three still stuck up nationalists, always putting their nations interests first, thinking they are still superior over the other instead of cooperating properly.
Our focus will always be bringing cohesion instead of contradiction. That's our task. Nothing else. Making sure we all get a say and don't get pushed around by uncle Sam.
And yes: we did have 20% of our male population armed in WW2, some of the highest in the world.
Or what about Fabrique National, one of the best small arms producer in the world.
Plenty of reasons to not give a single solitary shit about whatever comes out of the yellow clown his mouth.
We'll leave the sucking up to the USA to the Netherlands.
Leve België.
Great video, definitely changed my outlook.
Im a Canadian and I knew Canada would be mentioned in the comments without even watching the videos.
One would hope so. It is a bit of a national embarrassment. :)
Have you spotted all the excuse our fellow Canadians are making in the comments? Its just sad.
Poland got sick & tired of being invaded, so they began carrying a bigger stick 😂
And Germany funded a large part of that stick.
@@AntonGudenus Not really
Missed the Netherlands in this video. Expected to hit the 2% in 2024 (finally). Building a bunch of new frigates to protect our freeloading southern neighbor 😁
We Brits would always come to the aid of the Netherlands. The way you,folks take care of the graves of our fallen veterans from the war is unbelievable. As an ex British infantry veteran visiting, I was moved to tears very proudly watching families cut the grass and maintain the area where our guys are buried in Holland.
Belgium?
Yea Portugal is piised to hit 1.8% soon and we're doing cool things with drone aircraft carrier things (that your designing thanks Holland)
Simon has become a true Czech. Turkiye defense budget of 4% is indeed 4.5 billion dollars, but in short scale it's 4.5 trillions.
To consider turkey a free rider is a stretch, out of the last 72 years they were under 2% for 6 years
Regarding Germany’s free ride, Finland has more German Leopard tanks than Germany.
We need to also touch on, as this has been twisted by Trump - that NATO spending per country, is NOT put into some kind of lump some of all funding then distributed or some stupid idea. the 2% of GDP idea is for those countries to put into defense spending in general. nothing really has to do with money going towards NATO. as NATO isnt an entity itself, its a collection of countries, unlike the UN that is an entity itself used to allow countries to talk to each other and provide humanitarian support.
So, if one country isnt spending their 2% of defense, it effects... just that country. IF it was directly attacked. No one else has to pick up its bills.
Q: "what about NATO military bases in other countries? Who will pay for those?"
A: Theres no such thing as NATO only bases. each military base is set up by one country, and can be jointly used. Usually every country that wants a long term presents at said base HAS to fork over the funding for maint, overhead, care for wing facilities for their troops, ect.
There is no real downside unless the said country that isnt spending enough is attacked first. I say attacked first, because if Article 5 is called, every nation in NATO will bump their spending past that 2%.
That’s true- but it is supposed to be for the common defense and like it or not - a lot of NATO countries did start increasing their defense spending because Trump was calling them out
@@jdluntjr76226 Common Defense of what? lets look at Gerrmany. they bump up to 2% or higher. where's that money go? ... no where but its own military forces.
like said at the end, if article 5 is called, all NATO countries will bump their spending way past that 2% anyway.
And Trump didnt do anything but threaten to leave NATO... he still does, and tell russia to invade our allies. which he still does. It was the invasion of Ukraine that brought spending back up.
Belgium, despite looking bad in the rankings, does do one good thing that other small monetary contributors to NATO could usefully emulate - it concentrates its spending for greater effect. Belgium has a lot of minesweeping ships for it size, and is currently updating its fleet with new vessels with the latest technology bought from France.
Even if Belgium greatly increased its military budget, the country is too small to have much hope of resisting invasion or military pressure on its own. So membership of an effective alliance is essential, and ideally Belgium should be seen by its alliance partners as a valued member.
Within NATO Belgium has enough resources to become a centre of minesweeping expertise, and has done so. Sea mines are a growing threat, but sweeping them tends to be bit of a neglected speciality in many bigger navies. It's difficult and dangerous in any navy, but not great for career progression.
But in Belgium's minesweeper-heavy navy being good at minesweeping is more likely to be good for the career of ambitious young officers.
Anyway, Belgium can usefully provide NATO with a minesweeping contingent should any adversary start deploying them. And in current conflicts there's a lot of innovation taking place in related area such as uncrewed military sea drones, in both surface and underwater forms. So minesweeping expertise may be making a comeback.
A factor neglected in the video is that raising spending on NATO or the military generally can be a hard sell in many European countries. The money will have to come from somewhere else in the government budget, and peaceloving Europeans may prefer better hospitals, railways or policing over spending on missiles and warplanes in distant conflicts.
Minesweeping is an activity less overtly agressive than bombing or strafing, so politically its likely to be an easier sell.
Another example of this is Sweden. Before becoming a full member of NATO recently, Sweden practiced working with NATO forces by sending helicopters kitted out as air ambulances to operate alongside them in Afghanistan. Thus making the idea of membership in the NATO alliance more palatable to the citizens who will be paying the bills in their taxes.
As an American who’s polish descent, Poland based🗿