NATO: Who is (and isn't) paying their way?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Unlocking NATO's financial dynamics! Delve into the alliance's spending saga-from its origin to the current rift. Discover who's paying their dues, who's lagging, and why the two percent rule is reshaping defense strategies globally.
→ Subscribe for new videos at least twice a week!
www.youtube.co...
Love content? Check out Simon's other RUclips Channels:
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @xplrd
Brain Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Places: youtube.com/@P...
Astrographics: youtube.com/@A...
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
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 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\
yes indeed....
@@jdluntjr76226 our leaders don't share the same leadership and vision as the general population
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 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.
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 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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
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.
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 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?
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
@@shzarmai 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%.
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... 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.
I would like you to explore this Arctic thing in a detailed video, Simon. It intrigues me and pushes my curious buttons.
Agree!
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?
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 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.
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.
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
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
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”
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)
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"
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.
More people need to see videos like this. Thank you for making it
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.
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.
To consider turkey a free rider is a stretch, out of the last 72 years they were under 2% for 6 years
Last time Poland increased it's military spending so rapidly to such a high level was 1936-1939.
Thank you Simon for educating people on important issues.
No mention of Ireland Austria and Switzerland who contribute nothing.
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.
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
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
😂😂😂😂
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?
Thanks for covering European things for US people unbiased, Greetings from Finland!
If I may...I was blessed to visit Turkey a few times during a 20 year boat ride (usn). Wonderful nation. I trust them.
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?
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 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
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...
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
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.
With a population of less than 150 thousand when NATO was formed (since increased to 350 thousand) it has never seemed to make sense for Iceland to establish a military. Noting the island's importance in keeping open (or closing, if you are Russia) the lines of communications between Europe and North America, it has however seemed mutually beneficial to both Iceland and NATO to include the country in the alliance. Lately we have even started paying those NATO members who provide our peace-time air defence - a sum which I guess COULD be counted as our contribution. According to military experts we have also had a target for a nuclear strike painted on our international airport - which is visible from the capital ....
Iceland and Luxembourg shouldnt need to spend anything on military (its pointless anyway, no population to support more than couple hundred men), but it should have a "2% defense budget" thats used to contribute to other militaries, for ammo or equipment. Luxembourg with its 0,7% is already massively overspending for what it can realistically field and operate.
On the other hand, take central or eastern europe. I will use my own example, Czechia but its very applicable to all ex-communist countries and balkans.
Western NATO did their major spendings in the 70s/80s and kept the equipment, mostly upgrading and so on, but central/eastern european militaries did the same, however all with warsaw pact tech which is getting unuseable. Due to age, inabiliy to upgrade or lack of (russian) parts.
Czech army has the finances for the "poster" tech like new IFVs (from Sweden), new self propelled artillery (from France), new APCs (domestically), anti air (sweden/israel/domestic), new tanks (soon german Leo 2A8), attack and transport helicopters (USA), F35s (USA). But the "support" equipment is hopelessly old with no money to spend on it like mortars, self propelled mortars (both postponed to 2035), handheld anti air and anti tank which is nonexistent, medium/heavy helicopters from the soviets that barely work (postponed past 2030), part of the transport trucks, no medium or heavy transport planes, reservists use old ORIGINAL unmodernized T72s, VZ58 rifles the 1950/60s, VZ59 machine guns from the 50s. And I am not even touching on the classic suspects like lacking uniforms, boots, kevlar vests, helmets.
And I bet my left testicle its the exact same story in Poland, Baltics, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania...
You or Lux might not be able to directly contribute with the combined defense yourself, but you can contribute to it and make a big difference.
@@jakubblaha4904 I think perhaps you misunderstand the "2% rule". You are not required to GIVE 2% of you GDP to someone else, you are only required to SPEND the 2%. I personally think we ought to leverage our cheap energy to establish a major production line for 155mm shells which we could then SELL to our NATO allies.
@@LeifurHakonarson Yep, I know its SPEND 2%. But what do you do if you have giant economy, tiny population?
For luxembourgh, 2% is bit over 1,5bn dollars. For Iceland it would be bit over 0,5bn dollars or so.
If you stay within reasonable NATO-style society militarization of around 3-4 soldiers per 1000population, Luxembourg can stand at just under 2000 personel, Iceland around 1000.
Both can turn their entire "Theoretical" military into one big tank army...and replace the entire tank force every 3ish years :D
Both Iceland and Luxembourg have much higher economy output versus its population than many others. And at the same time, populations so small they cant properly function even as medium sized unit like a battalion (1 000men), if they were to do a military build up towards the 2%, making any of their efforts at building a military pretty much a waste. Yes, you spend it on paper, but it wont have an effect if "sh*t hit the fan"
Thats why I suggested they shouldnt spend it on themselves (it would be wasted), but on other allied militaries that have the population to support complex military structure but lack the economy to do.
As an example, you can have 1000men military or you can spread the icelandic theoretical 2% spending across the three baltic states for a year or two and theyll turn the border into an unbreakable fortress no russian will ever cross.
TLDR: If Lux/Ice spend it on themselves, its not effective.Its a checkmark on a list, but with no effect for the NATO alliance.
@@jakubblaha4904 Well, you only responded to the non-controversial part my response - that building an "Icelandic Military" wouldn't make any sense. I agree. The more controversial point I tried to make was yes, we should spend 2% of our GDP on "military stuff" but that doesn't mean we must give it away for free, we might as well sell it for a profit. You might have argued that we SHOULD pay others for defending Iceland - and if that defence was altruistic in nature I would agree. The fact is, however, that NATO's military activities in Iceland have little to do with the security and safety of the local population and everything to do with the security of Europe in case the North Atlantic is contested in a conventional war and the security of the US in a nuclear one (it REALLY helps to know where those Russian boomers are). Build a needed resource and sell it, everybody gains.
I don't know anyone who thought that NATO members were supposed to pay 2% of their GDP to NATO. At least here in the US, it's widely understood that the 2% is the target for NATO members to spend on their own defense. And the countries that routinely hit the target are not surprisingly, Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania who know all too well the danger of living next to the 1,000 pound bear that is Russia. Meanwhile Germany, a significant portion of which was living under the Soviet yoke just as recently as 1991, seemed to have forgotten until recently that it inhabits a rather dangerous neighborhood and was quite willing to mortgage its future to the tender mercies of Vlad the Invader despite his disregard for the borders and sovereignty of other countries. As for Canada, under Fidel, Jr. the Canadian government wants to live under the US nuclear umbrella while its armed forces languish, such that a country bodering two oceans and with one of the longest shorelines in the world, much of it covered with ice, has fewer submarines than Disney World.
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.
Regarding Germany’s free ride, Finland has more German Leopard tanks than Germany.
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.
As a Canadian, I am sad that we arent spending the 2%. But in our defense, 1.37% is still 30+Billion usd. We have a huge economy at $2.2 trillion (usd equivalent). France for ex, spends $55B with with 1.6x the population. So our apemding is dollar for dollar per person, right on par with them.
Now I'm going to say something that might oiss people off. As a country, we need a MUCH bigger military. China is growing andbis a threat. As is Russia. But to me (and around 40% of our pop), our biggest threat is directly too our south. The USA.
They are destroying their resources. Depleting their water. Poisoning their soil. And soon, whether they like it or not, will be overtaken by china as the worlda biggest economic driver. As empires fall, they lash out. And if Diaper Don gets in again, we are all in trouble.
Once the colorada river dries up and the south west starts dying of no water, theyre going ro tey and take us to quench their thirst.
And we need to be ready to defend ourselves. That countey cares about no other unless it benefits their corporations (look at the palestinian genocide .... Israel is buying their weapons so they dont care about the people).
China isn't going to become the world's economic superpower. Their population is top heavy with elderly people who consume more than they produce. I've been hearing this Canadian crap that the USA is their biggest threat for decades. If we wanted to take over Canada, we would have done so a long time ago. You guys are the epitome of the little brother who is envious of his big brother. You stamp your feet and whine while accomplishing nothing.
Heh, Belgium having the...Gaul!
I'd like to point out a few things re Germany:
1.) It wasn't always this way. if look up the BIP/Spending ratio of Germany, you'll see, that from 1953 - 1983, it was most of the time above 3 % (with peaks in the 60'ies above 4% and up to 5 %). It remained above 2 % until reunification came in 1991, and only then receded. Back then, it was common understanding within NATO, that Germany should foremost concentrate on integrating the former GDR. (To put that into perspective: that would be roughly the same, as if the US would have to integrate Mexico. Could you do that in a frame of 30 years?)
2.) Despite struggling, Germany was always the EU-member, that had to subsidize the others the most. To this day, Germany is the biggest net payer.
3.) While other countries skirted their humanitarian tasks even more than their military ones, Germany took in refugees several times - starting through the Balkan wars (uncounted), going on with the DAESH/ISIS crisis approx. 1 Million, and now since 2022, roughly another 1 Million because of the war in Ukraine.
So, give us a break! The amount of money spent towards strategic security is much larger, than just the budget of the military!
Sure, if Trump would get his way, the refuges might well drown and starve.
You're lucky this only looked at defence spending. If you also consider foreign policy, Germany effectively green lighted Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The good news for Germany, is that its how the story ends which matters most.
@@Michael-no7bx Germany has invested some 0.6% GDP anually into their allies economies over the last decades. This in turn made the likes of Poland develop much faster.
After all a percentage of GDP is only impressive, if your GDP is impressive. And Germany invested billions into making their allies GDP impressive.
@@Michael-no7bx How so? I can't remember any member of German government encouraging Putin to invade Ukraine?
It wasn’t an unprovoked attack by Russia Simon. Nato reneged on the Minsk treaty.
Canada has 88 F-35 and 12 Type-26 frigates on order. Can't spend the money until delivered. Short on soldiers, recruiting not going great.
The Germany roommate reference had me laughing so hard. Brilliant.
Whilst American spends about 3.4% of gdp on defence, how much of that goes to the pacific theatre, the Middle East theatre, Africa, South America theatres? Do they actually spend 2% on nato defence?
The Pentagon stated in 2023 that only 7% of its budget is spent in Europe. 7% of 3.4% is 0.24%
You are missing the point. Spending 2% now doesn't make up for not spending 2% for previous decades. Some nations need to be spending around 10% in order to catch up.
Rhat's moving the goalposts. First, demanding they pay their way. Then, once they do, rather than accepting them paying their "bill," demanding they pay another bill for the past. Also, the 2& was necer an official requirement, so... Also, for some countries, like Greek, which is still economically enfeebled, Luxembourg, who would still have nothing if it spent 2&, and the micro-nations Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Malta, San Marino, The Vatican... Also, anything remotely close to 10& would destroy any nation, even the U.S., so that is a target designed as a means of rejecting any realistic effort. Also, the U.S. doen't spend it's amount for anyone but U.S. capitalists. It has used it to open and protect markets for then. Globalization. Now it is de-globalizing because we need less and less of those international trade routes. The thing that matters is that everyone is ponying up and gearing up and we are mobilizing for the aggressor, Russia. Anyonoe who doesn't accept those efforts is probably just seeknig to destroy NATO in order to help Russia, one of the three worst dictatorships on te planet.
@@izzytoons hang on mate, hang on:
The USA and UK don't have a war in its backyard - the EU does. The USA and UK have invested in defence. The EU hasn't.
You can hear the guns from the EU - you cannot hear them from the UK or USA.
Continental Europe has had a free pass for decades. It has laughed at the UK while it traded with Russia. It STILL trades with Russia.
It's time for the EU to pay its bills.
@@rosshilton Um, the Ukraine is fighting a war against Russia in part for US. Russia is our mortal enemy as well. They are the only country with the firepower to annhilate us, and they have a madman with his finger on the button of the nukes. Some idiots are walking around here thinking the psychopath on the cell block is our friend. Wrong. He bombed a thousand schools, right off the bat. Just for starters. That's not even the bad part. Normal people don't do that The moment he can step on your throat, he will. You're an idiot if you think otherwise. He's not your friend. He's just out to manipulate for his benefit. Anyway, Russia takes out the Ukraine, they get stronger. Our enemy gets stronger. That affects us, not just the Ukraine, not just the EU. Just as WWII was our battle, not just the UK's, not just Europe, so, too is this one. Just connect two dots. That's all it takes. Two.
Great video, definitely changed my outlook.
Just pay your share!! All of them….. including my country! We all should look at Poland as an example… for more things than one.
well, its not as "pay your share" but "spend more then 2 prc. of your GDP on your defence"
and yes I agree with that part (my country spends 2.5), but US president shouldnt say crazy stuff like "he will encourage peeps to invade NATO members" 😂
most of them who doesnt spend is in West Europe anyway. they wont get invaded.
but we all should be prepared for war, basically.
…Thanks for the update and insight into the figures… buck up or face the consequences…💙💛💙
That would be an annual military budget of almost $90 billion from Germany (3rd largest in the world) and over 3 times bigger than Poland.
You missed one important point. Germany is third in Military aid spending for Ukraine behind 1. EU 2. USA. Germany is paying the biggest part of the EU spending and that is the best way to do. Who wants a Germany to have a agenda with nationalism + high military spending? The discussion about the 2% are a tool split NATO countries and you are part of. The behavior in the past show that Nato was never a threat to Russia. The present shows that a strong EU + Nato is the right way to go.
Strange you didn't cover Finland, who spent 2.45% of her GDP on defence in 2023, putting her at 5th place in NATO, ahead of Romania, Hungary and Latvia.
Romania spends this year 20 billion euros on weapons. Way above Finland. Sorry mate
@@BucharestRO And? This is about percentage of GDP spent on defence in 2023.
There one big problem noone talk about - What is 2%?
From defence budgets are made it takes up to two years before you know which prosent this will be of the countries economy. NATO chould change it's caculation to a prosent of a countries economy two years esrlier.
Norway expected to pass 2% this year, bug after they mDe the budget decision then the economy increases more than exoected.
As if I needed another reason to be embarrassed about Mr. Trudeau, Simon gave me another.
Look back at our spending throughout the years it’s not a Trudeau thing
Where was NATO in 1982 when Argentina attacked the United Kingdom? Nowhere to be seen.... Oh no, they said, this is a British conflict, they said. The US did lend a little support. Not much, but more than the others...
France helped (both sides).
Iceland does contribute though in the form of being basically an unsinkable immobile volcanically temperamental aircraft carrier in a very strategic location, the GIUK gap.
Furthermore, two percent of Iceland's GDP is only about 500 million dollars, that doesn't exactly get you very much materiel, if we did we'd probably focus them on anti-ship and anti-air capabilities.
Honestly the best use of that money would probably best be spent on improving logistics between the US and Europe, via more airports and seaports, maybe even submarine pens. In the event of war making it harder for anyone to harass the logistics chain between the European and American continent is paramount.
Although UK has maintained the 2% spending, it has wasted much of the money and the armed forces are weak and hollowed out. Woke initiatives have also negatively impacted fighting spirit.
Brilliant presentation, as a Canadian I can say that we’re praying for a change of government that will wake up.
I don't know what will happen to this country if that flake stays in office. Truly terrifying in a hard world.
who?
Yeah as a Belgian i am deeply ashamed… I rather them to stop funding migration and development aid in foreign countries and start spending on defence. Hell i want NATO and EU to start punishing my country for not hitting the 2% mark BDP spending. For 20 years now all they did was talk and make false promises, it has been long enough
Everyone knows what happens when Europe starts spending money on the military. We finished "DLC: Earth" (When the world was European) years ago. Now we are waiting for the new kids to catch up on exp and finish the DLC so that we can start the new DLC:Space. For the new one we have to be united because it's more fun to play with friends.
If slackers say they're far from Russia and don't to spend, then it makes sense those who spend accordingly make a separate military institution and put that money in said institution, outside NATO, even if quitting is necessary.
It bothers me that most of every additional Canadian dollar spent on military stuff goes to the USA. So if a US President says "Spend your 2%!!", he's saying, "Send your money to the USA now!!" Nevertheless, I'm 100% onside with Canada reaching 2%.
Bro, Sweden joined NATO 2 days before this video was uploaded. Why did you say they’re not in NATO?
The UK was going to spend less than 2%GDP until defence pensions were included in expenditure under David Cameron's leadership I believe .
In this regard I often feel ashamed to be danish, we have the sea on most of our border, the entire Faroe islands, Greenland and part of the arctic to patrol, yet an abysmal Navy. This a nation that was once a proud seafaring prowess, rivaling Britain during the Napoleonic wars. Priorities in the 21st century are confusing.
The 2% rule is a great goal, but it does not tell the full story about contributions to NATO. It counts how much a country spends on defense, but it does not count whether you spend it in a way that benefits NATO or in a way that only benefits the country itself.
If one NATO country spend 1.5% on a rapid deployment force that could be deployed to any NATO country under attack, whereas another spend 2% on building bunkers on its domestic soil far from any potential enemy, the lower spenders would be the bigger contributor.
unless those bunkers are what is holding up the attack? NATO have set rules about what counts towards the 2%
@@graveperil2169 No they do not have set rules against what counts towards the 2% rule, because there is not even a 2% rule in place. The 2% is just a non binding political goal.
@@torben777 yes the do "definition of NATO defence expenditure and national definitions" NATO has its own rule what is included and what is excluded in defence spending, they have rules and guidelines they just dont have punishments
I cant help thinking it's not how much you spend but how effectively you spend it.
74 y.o. Paid into SS and MC every two weeks for 45 years....
Now making my "sucking noise" according to you. Yay 💯! Thank you, America !!!!!!!
The problem with our Germany is less that it has not enough money (although that is certainly part of it) it is more that it spends this money rather unwise not buying anything wholesale but always buying very specialized equipment specifically built and manufactured for them which makes it both less interchangeable with the gear of our Allie’s and way more expensive then if they just bought the things that are available already. Just a tiny example of this is that the Bundeswehr has its own sunscreen factory. Probably that would also complicate supply in case things got more serious. But yes certainly they also need more money for backup parts and ammunition and they have to reform the way the military is ordering gear as it just is going too slow as it is.
Good and fair reporting.....do not detect bias...well done
Im not sure if a sudden surge in spending will be able to overcome decades of not adding to stockpiles
How can you say France is the only NATO ally with nuclear weapons other than the US? What about the UK? Those Polaris armed subs are always out there!
The thing is, nobody HAS to. It is SUGGESTED that a member spends 2% of the GNP on defence, it is not a requirement
it's not a requirement really for NATO members to defend them then, did'nt notice all the NATO members coming to the UK's help when the Falklands got invaded.
@@davidrenton North Atlantic Treaty Organization, find a map
@@graveperil2169 yeah the UK is in the N Atlantic, to be honest dd'nt need them , did'nt ask them
Well done. Canadian retired GO here. I would submit Canada’s position also has an ideology component (current government). But all in all, your comments are hitting bullseye. Thank you
What ideology
Excellent analysis.
As a Canadian who spent 25 years in the military I can honestly say its our government structure which is the problem, not Canadian's willingness to spend on its military. EVERY time a different party gets elected they cancel virtually all procurement plans the previous government had claiming they were poorly contracted and starts again. when I first got in they were boasting about their plans for new multi roll support ships (tankers with roll on/ roll off capabilities), new fighters, new helo's, new frigates, ect. In the first couple years we got new frigates but they were downsized on size and capabilities, and that was it...... they were always saying new equipment were on the way but it NEVER materialized new fighters.... nope, new helos.....nope (except a few in the last 5 years) and the list can go on. The latest government did however have no problem canceling the F35 program in the first few months while forcing through idiotic policies like putting tampons on the men's room and neutering gendered speech, along with dozens of other stupid crap. Now Canada doesn't need to spend 2% of GDP because no one wants to join the laughing stock its been turned into.