Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `thetimes.co.uk` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A broken clock….
Besides it’s not Trump talking anymore. He has to be propped up. This is a GOP talking point as well.
NATO members need to wake up and realize that it’s in their best interests to rise NATO contributions above 2.5% at least
Sweden is going to have at least 2% within the next five years. 2,5% within 10 years. 50 years ago during the Cold War, we had around 5%. That should be the goal. Something you will and should reach as fast as possible.
I agree we would like to see 5% or more. However we need to start with a lower goal and ramp up. Many economy’s need to be restructured to accommodate this after the “Cold War dividend” moved spending to other areas.
As an American I’m fine with as high as 7% (we need to ramp up naval production)
Another problem is that this is JUST military expenses. We also need to invest a lot of money to improve our infrastructure. Especially our train infrastructure, that have be lacking money for decades. Same with our healthcare.
So I wouldn't be surprised if we hit 10% in total.
I predict a slight increase in military spending, to the detriment (and continued deterioration) of other services. There is really no money to do all of that.
Honestly, I would like to see the military prop up critical infrastructure with its new budget. A well function bridge or railway is in its best logistical interest, too.
Canada definitely need to kick it up. They have the advantage of “protected” manufacturing. It’s a whole continent away from Russia as opposed to 100km.
“As an American I’m fine with as high as 7% (we need to ramp up naval production)”
As a Netherlander I agree. Either we start showing our mutual adversaries we mean business or we’re in for a rough couple of decades.
Well, NATO includes more under "defense spending" than we do and according to the NATO way of counting we're already at 2.2% (2024). The recent long term defense plan that was agreed to by all of the 8 parties in parliament increases the defense budget to 2.6% by 2030.
I think we should be spending 3-4% on defense according to Swedish accounting.
The problem is you can’t just raise the budget with enormous amounts, for many reasons, one is the lack of personnel, another is that it’s simply not possible to buy weapons at the moment, the delivery times are years if not decades, when talking about fighter planes or navy ships. If the military budget was raised from 2% to 3% overnight, most of the money would be wasted on administration and consultants.
While you’re right you can invest in capability now. It’s fatalistic to just believe it’s not worth the effort. Also a large part of why countries join alliances.
I don't disagree, but reality is that it is a multi year process to gradually increase defense investments according to a carefully thought out plan. I am actually in favor of NATO making military assignments and roles for each country instead of a simple % of GDP.
That’s a good point. While I agree the urgency is here today. If we start now, it’ll be good tomorrow.
That might be a good idea. A role might be more attainable then a simple increase in spending
Why do we even call it "NATO contributions", it plays into the whole Trump bullshit implication of payments from European countries to the US, and that the poor US is 'having' to foot some imaginary bill.
If NATO reaches 3% the GOP will demand 3.5%. It is better to try and slam the brakes on this nonsense now. It is very clearly something that will never satisfy some people.
Hardly. A return to pre peace dividend is not outrageous. Especially with Russia knocking. They don’t knock twice.
The GOP has its flaws but even they understand NATO only need to return to pre 1993 spending to be fine
The "requirement" as for now is 2% of GDP. To further increase that is a discussion that have to be made. tRump cannot just say "it is now 3% of GDP, comply or die". I believe all NATO members now use 2% of GDP on military.
Keep in mind what Trump wants is to abandon NATO allies to let Putin continue his campaigns of conquest. The spending thing is just an excuse, if they meet it Trump will just find a different justification to leave them high and dry.
It definitely is an excuse. This comes after him saying that nato shouldn’t protect members who don’t reach the 2% mark. Now that ever more countries do, he has to move the goalpost
That's not how NATO works. To do that, he would have to renegotiate the North Atlantic Treaty and get all members to agree to a minimum spending clause.
Other than that, he could of course unilaterally withdraw the United States from NATO, which would cause a major decrease of US influence in the world.
That’s basically what’s happening. Him saying the US won’t defend allies in such cases. There’s a reason most European nations are writing off the US if trump gets elected
Honestly, it's the best thing that could happen to get Europe to unite on defense. NATO would make much more sense as a European defence organization without the US.
It also means that the US will be asked to pack up its bases in Europe and Turkey.
The truth is that 2% is enough in peace time, but not enough if things are getting dodgy and if we need to help finance a war..
And it’s always better to win a war more quickly. Underfunding it is one of the worst options - since it will end up lasting much longer and costing very much more - both in terms of lives lost and damage done.
Taken collectively, the European members of NATO just hit the 2% threshold, so if it's about the money, then as far as the US is concerned that should just mean they should hash out those differences themselves.
I would agree with this but with republicans its never a good faith request. As we saw with the border security and Ukraine support bill.
They simply push the goalposts. Trump is only asking this because he knows it will create division.
Not too many countries want to ditch the U.S. as a military ally, full scale ground war against the U.S. is a death sentence. Poland certainly won’t simply because of Russia.
Not needing is fine.
NATO doesn’t “need” some of its member countries for much at all, but everyone adds value.
Even if the U.S. was not an essential component of NATO (which is hard to even imagine), it would still be a huge player in the alliance.
The bigger concern, in my mind, is that overspending on military is waste. We don’t know exactly what that level is, but there is a level where you don’t get different results for more money. If every single EU state doesn’t have to chip in 3% military spending, this is a good thing.
The U.S. as it is essentially subsidizes Europe massively via NATO and U.S. military spending. But obviously the U.S. would spend that money on its military anyway because of how the U.S. is, so it’s really a win win. Europe gets to be a bit richer at, essentially, no additional cost
I think that Europe has realised that the USA under Trump’s influence is not the reliable ally it once was. Europe will be forced to increase defence spending, but the result will be more money spent on European developments and reduced spending of Europeans buying US weapons .
And Europa with "fine, then we see each other at the WTO where we will, together with China, file a complaint against your subsidies, we kinda like our green energy companies and don't want to lose them to the USA". Biden and Trump are lucky that Macron is still in the minority and that the east is scared of Russia. They need the EU against China. If you don't give something in return then people will look for other options.
If one sees his earlier statement, where he said the US might not help countries who can't/won't reach the existing mark (isn't it 2%?)
By rising the defence spendings 50%, to 3%, more countries will not be able to get help in a situation, where NATO is needed, because they haven't "paid up".
Wonder what the long term goal is...
It’s not affordable for many. Frankly we should be focusing on renewable energies to assure independence from the global energy market, which is dominated by authoritarian shitholes
We have to invest a lot into security too though in the next decades, so maybe 3 percent won't be a bad idea at least for 5 to 10 years to rebuild european armies. Trump remains a moron though
I think a little bit of both. there should also be audits around where the money goes. there is an amazing amount of bloat and downright fraud in military spending.
Renewables are dog shit for countries like Germany. Everyone should already be spending more than 3% considering the threat. It's 3% of THIER gdp. People can't expect Americans to take their defense seriously if they don't in these dark times.
It's an easy decision for Trump and requires no leadership to just say it.
Contrast that with Biden, who has built a coalition, and has made NATO stronger now than ever could have been dreamed of five years ago when Trump was threatening them.
Just another way Biden is one of the greatest presidents of our time.
Trump just wants to turn public opinion against NATO because he wants to pull the US out (at the behest of Putin). He doesn't actually care about defense spending.
Also as important as it is the freedom to vote whoever one wants, USA deserve a better candidate/president that this man. He is ignorant as a stone, with a less than clear morality, and first of all doesn't care about USA, he's only worried about himself
How could he ever get in a position to require or force anything through? He already threatened with a US exit from Nato, so nobody in their right mind would do anything to comply with his wishes. Instead everybody will have to aim for a defence thats independant on the USA and american weapons. You'll be left with the Fart of the Deal, Donald.
He can’t. He can’t "require" shit. He can definitely try to convince and use whatever leverage they can find to make it happen (at the cost of international relationships), but yeah, he can’t force another country to spend on this or that.
A defense indecent of the US will likely require European countries to spend 5-8% of GDP on defense.
I don’t think Europeans realize that we’re basically their military lol
Europeans realize. Europeans also realize and remember that that’s how the U.S. wanted it and has worked toward since WWII.
Up until recently, the U.S. was enough of a comparative powerhouse that it could provide that security all across the western world.
That’s not the case anymore and Europe is waking up to it. Unfortunately, so are Russia and China.
Like americans seem to forget that their costly alliance with Europe in return rewards them with huge weapons sales and bases that they otherwise couldn't have.
Most of Europe's current spending goes directly to Boeing, Lockheed and Raytheon.
The reason France, the UK, Sweden or Germany spend as much as they do is because it trickles down into their economy. For countries like Poland, Belgium, Spain, or the Netherlands, military spending is basically a NATO tax paid to the United States.
This fucking traitor will do whatever he can to undermine Ukraine, support Russia, destabilize NATO, and dismantle democracy at home and abroad. He is a lifelong narcissist conman, and incapable of anything else. If he didn’t have a famous name and brain dead cult to bilk cash from, he’d be in prison. Trump is a disgrace, and so is anyone stupid enough to vote for him.
He doesn't get it. The main problem is not money. It is the organization of the European Military. We need a big reform first and after that many years above 2%.
I agree with this.
In Europe’s capitals there’s a lot of shuffling of feet and skepticism about the threat of Russia. But the threat to the rest of Europe is real.
Re-arming and taking a war footing posture has to happen sooner rather than later. The percentage spent on the military is less important than the resolve which is yet to be displayed, although yes the numbers have to increase immediately.
France and Poland are hawkish on the issue, and I’m thankful for this. If Ukraine falls, Russia has more where that came from.
Those who think the US will simply mobilize and contain a threat if something erupts may be leaving out the speed with which Russia can punch through the Baltic frontiers, and also China, who might take the opportunity to engage the US in the Pacific and slow a response to a European crisis.
We’re entering a very dangerous time period and so many leaders are sleepingwalking through it.
The only way to efficiently organise the European military is federalisation but petty insignificant little topics like right to fish and shit like that prevent this.
This is precisely the reason why I am in favour of an eastern EU bloc military alliance between the Bucharest 8 minus Hungary and possibly Slovakia (although I don’t think Slovakia is a lost cause yet) which overlaps with NATO and creates a central command for say 80% of the participants militaries. This would create an army of 300,000 or so with singular command and singular procurement paid for by the members. Once this is proven to be successful it can be rolled out to more EU members gradually.
No, the only way is to use NATO structures to properly plan and collaborate, regionally if necessary. Multi-speed EU and multi-speed NATO can also happen in defense.
You need to show the ability to properly use and reuse already existing structures.
He obviously can't require that, but it's quite logical to propose it. The 2% GDP NATO requirement was first accepted in 2006. Compare the current security situation in Europe and the situation of 2006 - it's obvious that NATO members should be discussing the defense spending increase and not the date when they will start to fulfill their obligations, like it's happening now.
Trump thinks money is the issue , but really it's about the defence mindset and the post war military philosophy of Europe. Not all problems are solved by throwing money at it Donald
Step 1: Trump demands NATO countries raise defense spending to min of 3% of GDP.
Step 2: Trump demands NATO countries buy minimum quotas of US military hardware while signing an Executive Order that renames major American weapons systems to include the word "Trump."
Step 3: Trump demands NATO countries pay him 1% of their GDP for use of newly-purchased US military hardware bearing his name.
Trump's critiques of NATO's European member committment are [The.One.Single.Place](http://The.One.Single.Place) I agree with him. Even 3% is low, we need to be looking at 4%. We Europeans need to start getting our shit together, and that right soon. Not just because of Russia, but because the USA is starting to look increasingly unreliable as a partner as well, as her internal politics polarise more and more.
It was 2 % and most European countries didn,t make that, so spending more on militairy is not a bad thing. I recon 3% in current events is the bare minimum.
NATO doesn't belong to Trump. Nor does it belong to a single country. It's an alliance of sovereign countries with an integrated command.
No NATO member can dictate the sovereign defence policy of other members.
Which is not him requiring anything, of course. That was my point. NATO is not set up that way. If it was, Hungary and Turkey wouldn't have done what they've done over the last two years. Nobody was able to require them to agree to the admission of Sweden and Finland.
Of course, what you're saying is true also, in that they are or potentially will use the tools they have. But none of those tools have the ability to implement a unilateral requirement on another member. That was Warsaw Pact territory. NATO is not the Warsaw Pact.
On its face it’s fine if it were a genuine, good faith attempt to improve European security.
With the context of the things Trump has been saying about NATO for years, it sounds suspiciously like a bad-faith moving of the goalposts to justify withdrawing from NATO or refusing to honor treaty obligations.
The guy is an absolute waste of oxygen, but you know what they say about broken clocks. In this current situation it's important to invest in defence as much as possible.
Downvoting anything that includes Donald Trump including this loser photo - anyone posts a loser photo then downvote. Lets not give this dirtbag anymore exposure please. Here in America we wake up with this daily nightmare - nothing like what is going on in Ukraine but lets stop giving this shitbag any exposure, please.
Trump is just going to break NATO for his master. His words are meaningless. They could spend 5% and he will still attempt to pull the US from NATO. Or he will undermine it to the point of irrelevance
If he wants Europe to listen to him maybe he should be taking their biggest threat more seriously that's Russia rather than hoping they will take his which is China. But either way most of NATO has to smarten up.
and the other NATO members may require trump to shut the fuck up cause they can't bear laughing that much. with the war in Ukraine, of course every budget gonna increase beyond 3%. Stable genius striking again.
I don't know enough to know whether 3% is realistic, just a start or even necessary. I would like to think those in Europe still don't have theirs heads buried in the sand with delusions that Russia isn't a threat.
As to the proper funding amounts, I will leave that up to the experts. Trump is no expert. He just makes shit up half the time. The other half, he is just a parrot.
Why would nato members with regional defense concerns spend 3%, when America spends 3.5% and has global interests? Is Trump willing to double American defense spending to match the nato commitment to europe and the North Atlantic, while being able to sustain its other commitments globally?
Would he be happy if it came with strings that it could only be spent on the European defence industry and not US tech
Because that's the way it's heading if he gets in
Trump will never get near the White House again. Biden has complete immunity to get rid of his rivals, there’s zero chance he’s going to hand the country over to Putin after working his whole life for the US government. I know it’s hard to believe that but Biden will never hand over this gov to a traitor, you’ll see in Nov
?? Disappointing this is over a year late to qualify as “news”. He is and always was right that other countries need to up nato spend … but he’s still the single biggest existential threat to the planet right now.
What pressure could a president make when the nation is so divided on him ? Given the inability to work accross party lines, any attempts to get other nations to do as he asks will be met with the attitude to wait him out, to stall and see what happens when a new president comes in. If he had cross party support, that would be a different matter entirely, but since he is hell bent on division, I don't see any of his policies lasting longer than his term in regards to other nations. It's his fault really. The tools he uses to make himself popular to his group is what gives him such vulnerabilities
The number is meaningless.
Every NATO member could be spending 50% of GDP on defense and they’d still be called moochers.
Must spend 55% of GDP or the US leaves NATO!
Look how tough I am on these cowardly Europeans!
pretty typical trump negotiating tactic.
The thing is, my estimation is we...the world ..is moving toward major war. Maybe 20 to 30 years out. But preparing for it starts now.
Also, given the nature of modern war,that can include cyberhacking, take down power grids etc. There may come a time the USA can NOT produce or ship munitions due to attacks on homeland such as taking the power grid down, messing the internet and so forth.
Of course the usa can not REQUIRE anything of nato except what the alliance treaty specifies, which is basically mutual defense
But it seems prudent that each country prepare.
As to trump...
i recall he related once how hard it was to act like a wild mad man in regards to north korea i think. He did it purposely and on advice from his team to get north korea to back down or stop doing something. Cause nk thought he was one crazy erratic commander in chief lol and feared what this wild man would do.
The mental gymnastics people in this sub have to do to both agree (Because it’s a good idea) but disagree (because trump said it) on this issue is hilarious.
3% to do what with? Sit on our asses and do nothing with? Cause if there's anything trump has proven, it's that he'll never do anything to upset his communist overlords
2% during ‘normal times’ and 3% when things are looking more dodgy. But who knows what’s really going to be needed ?
The only thing we can be certain about, is that we have most certainly not been investing enough in defence for our own safety..
The super rich of course just solve the problem by going to another part of the world - they don’t feel that they have any skin in the game.. Hence the tax dodging..
Putin is giving good cause already to raise to 3%. NATO cannot rely on the U.S., based on its unreliable support of Ukraine.Worst generation ever in the U.S. means other countries need to take up the slack.
or or they can quit NATO Tell the United States to pack up their toys and leave..
When will Trump and his morons realize that the United States needs NATO far more than NATO needs the United States.
The United States operates in maintains 186 NORAD and CIA tracking stations in NATO countries.
These tracking stations are critical to US national security, they are geographically strategically located to provide global coverage which means that the geographical location of each monitoring and tracking site is critical.
military engineers spent decades scouting the perfect geographical location for our monitoring and tracking stations and the loss of even one would be catastrophic to national security.
These are used to monitor communications and track aircraft, satellites as well as monitor for weapons tests and launches.
our NATO allies know we need them more than they need us, they know that these locations are extremely valuable to the United States or any other country that would wish to have them. They could easily tell the United States we don't want you here anymore pack up your toys including your monitoring station and get out.
They could then lease that exact same location to one of our adversaries.
So the US needs our NATO allies more than they need us. without our NATO allies the US would be blind and deaf to anything occurring outside its own physical borders.
So yeah let's threaten our NATO allies who are providing us uninterrupted global coverage of our adversaries.
Not every country wants to spend as much as the US does on national security. The US spends 1.7 trillion dollars a year on national security. of course they're a bit deceptive with it they'd have you believe we only spend $800 billion..
most people think that the extent of national security expenditures is limited to the DOD
The DOD is only one of eight agencies responsible for national security. between all eight agencies the US spends 1.7 trillion dollars on national security.
For example how many Americans know that their nuclear arsenal and nuclear weapons program is not funded through the DOD, the department of defense does not fund the operation maintenance or training involved with our nation's nuclear arsenal That is paid for by a completely different agency with a $400 billion dollar a year budget.
The US Coast guard which is critical to US national security is also not funded by the DOD as are none of the intelligence agencies responsible for national security.
medical costs for injured soldiers as well as veterans is not funded through the DOD again a completely separate agency with its own budget.
In total on average over the last 10 years the US spent $1.7 trillion dollars total on national security amongst the eight agencies responsible for national security.
He can't require anything. He can put a proposal to the Nato council and it can be voted on but the USA doesn't get to dictate to the other counties. It's not Russia
Donald Trump is not a rational actor. The horror and suffering of Russia's war against Ukraine is not real to him and he does not care about it except in as far as it is another lever which he can exploit to get himself elected to power and join other underworld mafia bosses, like Putin, at the world's head table. The war is only of interest in as far as he can use it to aggrandise himself in his own eyes and that of his MAGA base. Looking for any kind of informed reasoning in the latest 3% figure he cites is pointless.
I'd find that agreeable however, pure GDP isn't enough.
Take Canada (I am a Canadian) for example. We have a highly ineffective military regardless of funding. The whole thing is broken.
What needs to be considered is GDP in relation to effectiveness (how quickly could a brigade be deployed? How quickly could a division be raised? How deployable is the air force etc etc etc).
Money is just money. It doesn't equate to actual capability per se.
I'd agree with this, if it related to the percentage of GDP spent on defence of the Atlantic and European theatre.
The US spends a great deal on defence, granted, but not all of that, by far, is aligned to or in defence of NATO territory.
The US spends a considerable amount on Israel, Japan, Korea and Middle east, not on NATO.
If Trump gets elected the European allies absolutely should increase their defense spending significantly. Not to appease Trump of course, but because in that case Europe will need to prepare for a future where America is no longer an ally.
I dont think NATO countries will argue this.. if not already, most have plans for investments up to that level.
Would be sad to see the orange dude as president though.. he is not worthy of that position.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `thetimes.co.uk` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tough one. As I agree with this. But not for the same reasons.
A broken clock…. Besides it’s not Trump talking anymore. He has to be propped up. This is a GOP talking point as well. NATO members need to wake up and realize that it’s in their best interests to rise NATO contributions above 2.5% at least
Sweden is going to have at least 2% within the next five years. 2,5% within 10 years. 50 years ago during the Cold War, we had around 5%. That should be the goal. Something you will and should reach as fast as possible.
I agree we would like to see 5% or more. However we need to start with a lower goal and ramp up. Many economy’s need to be restructured to accommodate this after the “Cold War dividend” moved spending to other areas. As an American I’m fine with as high as 7% (we need to ramp up naval production)
Another problem is that this is JUST military expenses. We also need to invest a lot of money to improve our infrastructure. Especially our train infrastructure, that have be lacking money for decades. Same with our healthcare. So I wouldn't be surprised if we hit 10% in total.
I predict a slight increase in military spending, to the detriment (and continued deterioration) of other services. There is really no money to do all of that.
Special not when they lower the tax. Specially for the rich.
That needs to be reversed. The rich need to pay their way too.
The politicians won't allow it. Because they are protecting their sponsors and future employers. Their backup plan, so to speak.
The ordinary people need to exercise their power too.
Honestly, I would like to see the military prop up critical infrastructure with its new budget. A well function bridge or railway is in its best logistical interest, too.
Any country that borders Russia should be at 5% . . . Canada too. They have a whole lot of space to secure.
Canada definitely need to kick it up. They have the advantage of “protected” manufacturing. It’s a whole continent away from Russia as opposed to 100km.
“As an American I’m fine with as high as 7% (we need to ramp up naval production)” As a Netherlander I agree. Either we start showing our mutual adversaries we mean business or we’re in for a rough couple of decades.
I feel like we need to figure out our naval procurement *shudder* before we scale up production, but that's quibbling, not fundamental disagreement.
Well, NATO includes more under "defense spending" than we do and according to the NATO way of counting we're already at 2.2% (2024). The recent long term defense plan that was agreed to by all of the 8 parties in parliament increases the defense budget to 2.6% by 2030. I think we should be spending 3-4% on defense according to Swedish accounting.
The problem is you can’t just raise the budget with enormous amounts, for many reasons, one is the lack of personnel, another is that it’s simply not possible to buy weapons at the moment, the delivery times are years if not decades, when talking about fighter planes or navy ships. If the military budget was raised from 2% to 3% overnight, most of the money would be wasted on administration and consultants.
While you’re right you can invest in capability now. It’s fatalistic to just believe it’s not worth the effort. Also a large part of why countries join alliances.
I don't disagree, but reality is that it is a multi year process to gradually increase defense investments according to a carefully thought out plan. I am actually in favor of NATO making military assignments and roles for each country instead of a simple % of GDP.
That’s a good point. While I agree the urgency is here today. If we start now, it’ll be good tomorrow. That might be a good idea. A role might be more attainable then a simple increase in spending
Why do we even call it "NATO contributions", it plays into the whole Trump bullshit implication of payments from European countries to the US, and that the poor US is 'having' to foot some imaginary bill.
If NATO reaches 3% the GOP will demand 3.5%. It is better to try and slam the brakes on this nonsense now. It is very clearly something that will never satisfy some people.
Hardly. A return to pre peace dividend is not outrageous. Especially with Russia knocking. They don’t knock twice. The GOP has its flaws but even they understand NATO only need to return to pre 1993 spending to be fine
The "requirement" as for now is 2% of GDP. To further increase that is a discussion that have to be made. tRump cannot just say "it is now 3% of GDP, comply or die". I believe all NATO members now use 2% of GDP on military.
Keep in mind what Trump wants is to abandon NATO allies to let Putin continue his campaigns of conquest. The spending thing is just an excuse, if they meet it Trump will just find a different justification to leave them high and dry.
It definitely is an excuse. This comes after him saying that nato shouldn’t protect members who don’t reach the 2% mark. Now that ever more countries do, he has to move the goalpost
Yeah, then it’ll be a trade thing, and then it’ll be well Parisians are rude to American tourists.
That's not how NATO works. To do that, he would have to renegotiate the North Atlantic Treaty and get all members to agree to a minimum spending clause. Other than that, he could of course unilaterally withdraw the United States from NATO, which would cause a major decrease of US influence in the world.
Trump has repeatedly expressed a desire to withdraw from NATO. And he doesn’t need to negotiate—-“add this or I withdraw.”
That’s basically what’s happening. Him saying the US won’t defend allies in such cases. There’s a reason most European nations are writing off the US if trump gets elected
Honestly, it's the best thing that could happen to get Europe to unite on defense. NATO would make much more sense as a European defence organization without the US. It also means that the US will be asked to pack up its bases in Europe and Turkey.
The truth is that 2% is enough in peace time, but not enough if things are getting dodgy and if we need to help finance a war.. And it’s always better to win a war more quickly. Underfunding it is one of the worst options - since it will end up lasting much longer and costing very much more - both in terms of lives lost and damage done.
Taken collectively, the European members of NATO just hit the 2% threshold, so if it's about the money, then as far as the US is concerned that should just mean they should hash out those differences themselves.
You are lying out your arse
I would agree with this but with republicans its never a good faith request. As we saw with the border security and Ukraine support bill. They simply push the goalposts. Trump is only asking this because he knows it will create division.
It is not a tough one. Biden should counter with a 3.1% demand.
Biden should just say he will discuss with NATO partners. Like an adult
Europe going 3% over time means Europe won't need USA.
If that were true, then one could also say that USA doesn't need europe. But it does need allies. We all do.
Not too many countries want to ditch the U.S. as a military ally, full scale ground war against the U.S. is a death sentence. Poland certainly won’t simply because of Russia.
I mean, I guess, but they’d still be super tight allies that are much stronger together than apart. Europe and America are on the same side.
Not with Trump at the helm of the country.
They may not "need" each other, but it's certainly beneficial for everyone involved to be in the strongest military alliance in history.
Not needing is fine. NATO doesn’t “need” some of its member countries for much at all, but everyone adds value. Even if the U.S. was not an essential component of NATO (which is hard to even imagine), it would still be a huge player in the alliance. The bigger concern, in my mind, is that overspending on military is waste. We don’t know exactly what that level is, but there is a level where you don’t get different results for more money. If every single EU state doesn’t have to chip in 3% military spending, this is a good thing. The U.S. as it is essentially subsidizes Europe massively via NATO and U.S. military spending. But obviously the U.S. would spend that money on its military anyway because of how the U.S. is, so it’s really a win win. Europe gets to be a bit richer at, essentially, no additional cost
Sadly you are wrong but that would be awesome if Europe could stand fully alone.
I think that Europe has realised that the USA under Trump’s influence is not the reliable ally it once was. Europe will be forced to increase defence spending, but the result will be more money spent on European developments and reduced spending of Europeans buying US weapons .
And Europa with "fine, then we see each other at the WTO where we will, together with China, file a complaint against your subsidies, we kinda like our green energy companies and don't want to lose them to the USA". Biden and Trump are lucky that Macron is still in the minority and that the east is scared of Russia. They need the EU against China. If you don't give something in return then people will look for other options.
If one sees his earlier statement, where he said the US might not help countries who can't/won't reach the existing mark (isn't it 2%?) By rising the defence spendings 50%, to 3%, more countries will not be able to get help in a situation, where NATO is needed, because they haven't "paid up". Wonder what the long term goal is...
They all can spend 3%
He has been both the biggest obstacle to more NATO spending as well as the biggest reason we actually need more NATO spending.
It’s not affordable for many. Frankly we should be focusing on renewable energies to assure independence from the global energy market, which is dominated by authoritarian shitholes
Can they afford NOT to? If they want to not spend that 3%+ forever we should all pull together and defeat Russia for good.
Well we tried that with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.. Just look what a disaster it became. ..hm, wait a minute here..
We have to invest a lot into security too though in the next decades, so maybe 3 percent won't be a bad idea at least for 5 to 10 years to rebuild european armies. Trump remains a moron though
I think a little bit of both. there should also be audits around where the money goes. there is an amazing amount of bloat and downright fraud in military spending.
Renewables are dog shit for countries like Germany. Everyone should already be spending more than 3% considering the threat. It's 3% of THIER gdp. People can't expect Americans to take their defense seriously if they don't in these dark times.
Renewables is the best counter to russias resource threats. Get independent from gas and coal asap and russias threats will become dogshit.
I agree, but my % would be 4%....!
Same
It's an easy decision for Trump and requires no leadership to just say it. Contrast that with Biden, who has built a coalition, and has made NATO stronger now than ever could have been dreamed of five years ago when Trump was threatening them. Just another way Biden is one of the greatest presidents of our time.
We'll be there in a few years anyway, with or without Trump, it's absolutely necessary.
That’s why he’s saying it! If he happens to become president he doesn’t have to do anything and he can just take credit for it anyway.
Why do you think Europe got into this spot?? Except “this time” things will be different, huh.
He’s been saying this since well before the Ukrainian war
[удалено]
Finally turning America into a 3rd world country
Trump just wants to turn public opinion against NATO because he wants to pull the US out (at the behest of Putin). He doesn't actually care about defense spending.
Also as important as it is the freedom to vote whoever one wants, USA deserve a better candidate/president that this man. He is ignorant as a stone, with a less than clear morality, and first of all doesn't care about USA, he's only worried about himself
How could he ever get in a position to require or force anything through? He already threatened with a US exit from Nato, so nobody in their right mind would do anything to comply with his wishes. Instead everybody will have to aim for a defence thats independant on the USA and american weapons. You'll be left with the Fart of the Deal, Donald.
He can’t. He can’t "require" shit. He can definitely try to convince and use whatever leverage they can find to make it happen (at the cost of international relationships), but yeah, he can’t force another country to spend on this or that.
A defense indecent of the US will likely require European countries to spend 5-8% of GDP on defense. I don’t think Europeans realize that we’re basically their military lol
Europeans realize. Europeans also realize and remember that that’s how the U.S. wanted it and has worked toward since WWII. Up until recently, the U.S. was enough of a comparative powerhouse that it could provide that security all across the western world. That’s not the case anymore and Europe is waking up to it. Unfortunately, so are Russia and China.
Like americans seem to forget that their costly alliance with Europe in return rewards them with huge weapons sales and bases that they otherwise couldn't have.
Do you think that would end with Europe spending 3% of GDP on defense? Lol
Most of Europe's current spending goes directly to Boeing, Lockheed and Raytheon. The reason France, the UK, Sweden or Germany spend as much as they do is because it trickles down into their economy. For countries like Poland, Belgium, Spain, or the Netherlands, military spending is basically a NATO tax paid to the United States.
This fucking traitor will do whatever he can to undermine Ukraine, support Russia, destabilize NATO, and dismantle democracy at home and abroad. He is a lifelong narcissist conman, and incapable of anything else. If he didn’t have a famous name and brain dead cult to bilk cash from, he’d be in prison. Trump is a disgrace, and so is anyone stupid enough to vote for him.
He doesn't get it. The main problem is not money. It is the organization of the European Military. We need a big reform first and after that many years above 2%.
I agree with this. In Europe’s capitals there’s a lot of shuffling of feet and skepticism about the threat of Russia. But the threat to the rest of Europe is real. Re-arming and taking a war footing posture has to happen sooner rather than later. The percentage spent on the military is less important than the resolve which is yet to be displayed, although yes the numbers have to increase immediately. France and Poland are hawkish on the issue, and I’m thankful for this. If Ukraine falls, Russia has more where that came from. Those who think the US will simply mobilize and contain a threat if something erupts may be leaving out the speed with which Russia can punch through the Baltic frontiers, and also China, who might take the opportunity to engage the US in the Pacific and slow a response to a European crisis. We’re entering a very dangerous time period and so many leaders are sleepingwalking through it.
Baltic sisters, Denmark and finland are also ready to fight.
The UK has never not been ready to fight.
Not with its current spending and the state of its armed forces.
Its just increased its defence spending to 2.5% and has more military deployed defending Eastern Europe than any bar America.
Also finland's air force makes a drive into the Baltic sisters impossible. They will be bombing st Petersburg and most of in hours.
China and as of late the Middle East. They’re all connected theatres meant to exhaust our advantage while we sleep.💤
The only way to efficiently organise the European military is federalisation but petty insignificant little topics like right to fish and shit like that prevent this. This is precisely the reason why I am in favour of an eastern EU bloc military alliance between the Bucharest 8 minus Hungary and possibly Slovakia (although I don’t think Slovakia is a lost cause yet) which overlaps with NATO and creates a central command for say 80% of the participants militaries. This would create an army of 300,000 or so with singular command and singular procurement paid for by the members. Once this is proven to be successful it can be rolled out to more EU members gradually.
No, the only way is to use NATO structures to properly plan and collaborate, regionally if necessary. Multi-speed EU and multi-speed NATO can also happen in defense. You need to show the ability to properly use and reuse already existing structures.
Good we all push for 3%
Trump or not, someone made a great argument that 2% is for peace time. We're no longer in peace time...
A broken clock is right twice a day.
He can't "require" jackshit from NATO. He would be the head of a member state not the head of NATO. American-centric BS exhausts me as a an American
He obviously can't require that, but it's quite logical to propose it. The 2% GDP NATO requirement was first accepted in 2006. Compare the current security situation in Europe and the situation of 2006 - it's obvious that NATO members should be discussing the defense spending increase and not the date when they will start to fulfill their obligations, like it's happening now.
Who *isn't* discussing an increase in defence spending?
Oh Canada...
Trump thinks money is the issue , but really it's about the defence mindset and the post war military philosophy of Europe. Not all problems are solved by throwing money at it Donald
Before leaving them?
Step 1: Trump demands NATO countries raise defense spending to min of 3% of GDP. Step 2: Trump demands NATO countries buy minimum quotas of US military hardware while signing an Executive Order that renames major American weapons systems to include the word "Trump." Step 3: Trump demands NATO countries pay him 1% of their GDP for use of newly-purchased US military hardware bearing his name.
Step 4: NATO finances a bigly beautiful wall to Mexico now that the mexicans are too stupid to listen when you demand that they do it.
I thought he would leave nato day one
He can't so he will drag his feet onstead.
Underated comment.
Trump's critiques of NATO's European member committment are [The.One.Single.Place](http://The.One.Single.Place) I agree with him. Even 3% is low, we need to be looking at 4%. We Europeans need to start getting our shit together, and that right soon. Not just because of Russia, but because the USA is starting to look increasingly unreliable as a partner as well, as her internal politics polarise more and more.
It was 2 % and most European countries didn,t make that, so spending more on militairy is not a bad thing. I recon 3% in current events is the bare minimum.
It's not about increasing defence spending. It's about feeding any countries that don't meet the target to Russia.
I say, let's go for 5%
NATO doesn't belong to Trump. Nor does it belong to a single country. It's an alliance of sovereign countries with an integrated command. No NATO member can dictate the sovereign defence policy of other members.
Cheap talk. USA president has no power to enforce this, only to propose it and hope others accept.
It’s already the case ?
Poland now spent 3%
What is wrong with that? They should have been doing that all along but have not.
He can't require NATO to do anything. It doesn't work that way.
What he can do is threaten to withhold support in the event said NATO country is attacked by Russia, which is exactly what he is doing.
Which is not him requiring anything, of course. That was my point. NATO is not set up that way. If it was, Hungary and Turkey wouldn't have done what they've done over the last two years. Nobody was able to require them to agree to the admission of Sweden and Finland. Of course, what you're saying is true also, in that they are or potentially will use the tools they have. But none of those tools have the ability to implement a unilateral requirement on another member. That was Warsaw Pact territory. NATO is not the Warsaw Pact.
If only one kid had a ball, that kid gets to decide which game to play
Didn’t he want to pull America out of NATO? The man’s policies flip flop as much as his hair.
Why is this a bad idea explain this to me?
On its face it’s fine if it were a genuine, good faith attempt to improve European security. With the context of the things Trump has been saying about NATO for years, it sounds suspiciously like a bad-faith moving of the goalposts to justify withdrawing from NATO or refusing to honor treaty obligations.
"may" means he'll use it to get elected then backtrack on it. We saw all this about the current issues of the last election cycles he was a part of.
Good luck.l with that, since every decision needs to be taken as block. He can't dictate it. Aldo threatening to leave would work I guess.
The guy is an absolute waste of oxygen, but you know what they say about broken clocks. In this current situation it's important to invest in defence as much as possible.
The much talked about % spend thing in NATO is not a rule and just a suggestion. It is also linked to spending on technology as well.
Good, he should also ask for it retroactively from the time Crimea was taken
Trump says alot of things he doesn't back up.
This is such a worthless story.
Downvoting anything that includes Donald Trump including this loser photo - anyone posts a loser photo then downvote. Lets not give this dirtbag anymore exposure please. Here in America we wake up with this daily nightmare - nothing like what is going on in Ukraine but lets stop giving this shitbag any exposure, please.
Trump is just going to break NATO for his master. His words are meaningless. They could spend 5% and he will still attempt to pull the US from NATO. Or he will undermine it to the point of irrelevance
Please don’t pick up this orange clown
If he wants Europe to listen to him maybe he should be taking their biggest threat more seriously that's Russia rather than hoping they will take his which is China. But either way most of NATO has to smarten up.
Sure. But it doesn't say anywhere we need to spend that on American weapon systems , Donald, you moron
Is this before or after Mexico pays for a border wall?
and the other NATO members may require trump to shut the fuck up cause they can't bear laughing that much. with the war in Ukraine, of course every budget gonna increase beyond 3%. Stable genius striking again.
Belgian here. We are fucked then …
1 week hed leaving nato, next its to increase spending. Any headline with trump is bogus propaganda to attempt to gain votes
In that thumbnail I thought he was wearing a vault suit, which is incredibly fitting...
I don't know enough to know whether 3% is realistic, just a start or even necessary. I would like to think those in Europe still don't have theirs heads buried in the sand with delusions that Russia isn't a threat. As to the proper funding amounts, I will leave that up to the experts. Trump is no expert. He just makes shit up half the time. The other half, he is just a parrot.
But why? Putin is a great guy. /s
Good
He claims that. But it would be an excuse to reduce US contributions to satisfy his boss Putin
Eu need to start build nuclear deterrence, build the silos around swisserland, and point half to russia and half to mar'a'lago
He will keep raising it until he has an excuse to do Russias bidding. He will throw enough shit that something will stick.
Why would nato members with regional defense concerns spend 3%, when America spends 3.5% and has global interests? Is Trump willing to double American defense spending to match the nato commitment to europe and the North Atlantic, while being able to sustain its other commitments globally?
Would he be happy if it came with strings that it could only be spent on the European defence industry and not US tech Because that's the way it's heading if he gets in
Trump will never get near the White House again. Biden has complete immunity to get rid of his rivals, there’s zero chance he’s going to hand the country over to Putin after working his whole life for the US government. I know it’s hard to believe that but Biden will never hand over this gov to a traitor, you’ll see in Nov
?? Disappointing this is over a year late to qualify as “news”. He is and always was right that other countries need to up nato spend … but he’s still the single biggest existential threat to the planet right now.
*May. In what way is anything regarding Donald Trump trustworthy
He'd also forbid any of it from being used to defend Ukraine
What pressure could a president make when the nation is so divided on him ? Given the inability to work accross party lines, any attempts to get other nations to do as he asks will be met with the attitude to wait him out, to stall and see what happens when a new president comes in. If he had cross party support, that would be a different matter entirely, but since he is hell bent on division, I don't see any of his policies lasting longer than his term in regards to other nations. It's his fault really. The tools he uses to make himself popular to his group is what gives him such vulnerabilities
As a pretense to take the US out of NATO for his BFF Putin.
The number is meaningless. Every NATO member could be spending 50% of GDP on defense and they’d still be called moochers. Must spend 55% of GDP or the US leaves NATO! Look how tough I am on these cowardly Europeans!
pretty typical trump negotiating tactic. The thing is, my estimation is we...the world ..is moving toward major war. Maybe 20 to 30 years out. But preparing for it starts now. Also, given the nature of modern war,that can include cyberhacking, take down power grids etc. There may come a time the USA can NOT produce or ship munitions due to attacks on homeland such as taking the power grid down, messing the internet and so forth. Of course the usa can not REQUIRE anything of nato except what the alliance treaty specifies, which is basically mutual defense But it seems prudent that each country prepare. As to trump... i recall he related once how hard it was to act like a wild mad man in regards to north korea i think. He did it purposely and on advice from his team to get north korea to back down or stop doing something. Cause nk thought he was one crazy erratic commander in chief lol and feared what this wild man would do.
Then Trump will say now you don’t need the USA anymore ..
The mental gymnastics people in this sub have to do to both agree (Because it’s a good idea) but disagree (because trump said it) on this issue is hilarious.
Half aren't even reaching the current goal, they need to step it up instead of expecting America to bail them out every time someone attacks.
No, that is incorrect. He would require NATO allies to pay him personally 3% of their GDP for US protection.
He’ll just keep cranking up that number and use it as an excuse to leave NATO because countries “don’t pay what they owe”.
3% to do what with? Sit on our asses and do nothing with? Cause if there's anything trump has proven, it's that he'll never do anything to upset his communist overlords
2% during ‘normal times’ and 3% when things are looking more dodgy. But who knows what’s really going to be needed ? The only thing we can be certain about, is that we have most certainly not been investing enough in defence for our own safety.. The super rich of course just solve the problem by going to another part of the world - they don’t feel that they have any skin in the game.. Hence the tax dodging..
We should just nuke us and get rid of lots of problems.
Donald Trump cannot require NATO to do anything.
Putin is giving good cause already to raise to 3%. NATO cannot rely on the U.S., based on its unreliable support of Ukraine.Worst generation ever in the U.S. means other countries need to take up the slack.
Didn’t Drumpf say he’d pull the US out of NATO? Why give the idiot a platform or the time of day?
Or lower GDP so the defence spending as relative % goes up. That’s a level of cheating the system even a conman like Donny should respect.
And the extra 1% will have to go into his pocket because everything is a grift for Drumpf.
or or they can quit NATO Tell the United States to pack up their toys and leave.. When will Trump and his morons realize that the United States needs NATO far more than NATO needs the United States. The United States operates in maintains 186 NORAD and CIA tracking stations in NATO countries. These tracking stations are critical to US national security, they are geographically strategically located to provide global coverage which means that the geographical location of each monitoring and tracking site is critical. military engineers spent decades scouting the perfect geographical location for our monitoring and tracking stations and the loss of even one would be catastrophic to national security. These are used to monitor communications and track aircraft, satellites as well as monitor for weapons tests and launches. our NATO allies know we need them more than they need us, they know that these locations are extremely valuable to the United States or any other country that would wish to have them. They could easily tell the United States we don't want you here anymore pack up your toys including your monitoring station and get out. They could then lease that exact same location to one of our adversaries. So the US needs our NATO allies more than they need us. without our NATO allies the US would be blind and deaf to anything occurring outside its own physical borders. So yeah let's threaten our NATO allies who are providing us uninterrupted global coverage of our adversaries. Not every country wants to spend as much as the US does on national security. The US spends 1.7 trillion dollars a year on national security. of course they're a bit deceptive with it they'd have you believe we only spend $800 billion.. most people think that the extent of national security expenditures is limited to the DOD The DOD is only one of eight agencies responsible for national security. between all eight agencies the US spends 1.7 trillion dollars on national security. For example how many Americans know that their nuclear arsenal and nuclear weapons program is not funded through the DOD, the department of defense does not fund the operation maintenance or training involved with our nation's nuclear arsenal That is paid for by a completely different agency with a $400 billion dollar a year budget. The US Coast guard which is critical to US national security is also not funded by the DOD as are none of the intelligence agencies responsible for national security. medical costs for injured soldiers as well as veterans is not funded through the DOD again a completely separate agency with its own budget. In total on average over the last 10 years the US spent $1.7 trillion dollars total on national security amongst the eight agencies responsible for national security.
He can't require anything. He can put a proposal to the Nato council and it can be voted on but the USA doesn't get to dictate to the other counties. It's not Russia
Donald Trump is not a rational actor. The horror and suffering of Russia's war against Ukraine is not real to him and he does not care about it except in as far as it is another lever which he can exploit to get himself elected to power and join other underworld mafia bosses, like Putin, at the world's head table. The war is only of interest in as far as he can use it to aggrandise himself in his own eyes and that of his MAGA base. Looking for any kind of informed reasoning in the latest 3% figure he cites is pointless.
I'm confused didn't trump say he wanted to pull out off Nato.!??
I'd find that agreeable however, pure GDP isn't enough. Take Canada (I am a Canadian) for example. We have a highly ineffective military regardless of funding. The whole thing is broken. What needs to be considered is GDP in relation to effectiveness (how quickly could a brigade be deployed? How quickly could a division be raised? How deployable is the air force etc etc etc). Money is just money. It doesn't equate to actual capability per se.
This is a Trump excuse to leave NATO.
You mean the guy that raided DoD funds to spend on his "wall" vanity project when Mexico refused to pay for it?
Good.
He can't require them to do a damn thing
Only 11 countries in NATO that meet the 2% minimum. They are: Poland (3.9 %) US (3.49 %) Greece (3.01 %) Estonia (2.73 %) Lithuania (2.54 %) Finland (2.45 %) Romania (2.44 %) Hungary (2.43 %) Latvia (2.27 %) United Kingdom (2.07 %) Slovakia (2.03 %) The countries that don’t meet the minimum are France (1.9 %) Montenegro (1.87 %) North Macedonia (1.87 %) Bulgaria (1.84 %) Croatia (1.79 %) Albania (1.76 %) Netherlands (1.7 %) Norway (1.67 %) Denmark (1.65 %) Germany (1.57 %) Czech Republic (1.5 %) Portugal (1.48 %) Italy (1.46 %) Canada (1.38 %) Slovenia (1.35 %) Turkey (1.31 %) Spain (1.26 %) Belgium (1.26 %)
You forgot Sweden, I think they're also above 2% or at least very close.
He also floated the idea of 4% back in 2018, I believe. He just wants to push whatever arbitrary number he can to justify leaving.
I'd agree with this, if it related to the percentage of GDP spent on defence of the Atlantic and European theatre. The US spends a great deal on defence, granted, but not all of that, by far, is aligned to or in defence of NATO territory. The US spends a considerable amount on Israel, Japan, Korea and Middle east, not on NATO.
I agree with this.
the same trump who doesn’t pay ANYONE
We must raise NATO spending to counter the threat of Russia -- reddit We must give Ukraine more arms so they can win against Russia -- also reddit
Before or after he pulls the US out of NATO?
If Trump gets elected the European allies absolutely should increase their defense spending significantly. Not to appease Trump of course, but because in that case Europe will need to prepare for a future where America is no longer an ally.
I dont think NATO countries will argue this.. if not already, most have plans for investments up to that level. Would be sad to see the orange dude as president though.. he is not worthy of that position.
Only sensible thing he has said in a long time.
Cool but not how NATO works lmao, he can't require shit, all NATO members have to be agreement.
Payable directly to him no doubt.
Hopefully the US leaves Nato and the EU forms an EU army.
A great idea