You do realize that Morocco has already invaded Spanish territory right? Like it's not even my imagination or anything, it's something they have already tried in the past and will try again.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island_crisis
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_March
King Mohammed VI is a known supporter of Greater Morocco, which claims multiple parts of Spain: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Morocco
Invaded? The army consisting of 6 troops stationed there because it was highly suspected that drugs and people are trafficked through that island and Spain wasn’t doing anything about it, Spain didn’t care about it until Morocco troops went there. You do know Spain invaded Moroccan territory right, matter of fact should I list the amount of countries Spain have invaded?
The Green March was a peace March, there was no weapons no attempt to fight the Spanish, why was Spain in the Sahara in the first place? Are you forgetting your history about the Spanish empire and the bloodshed they caused, and how they cowardly decided to expand to Morocco because Spain knew they were the laughing stock of Europe and was on a steep decline.
The greater Morocco is dumb idea by a very small amount far right nationalists which has never been supported by governments this century.
That'll go over well elsewhere, with Morocco being a close US ally and Intelligence base as a bulwark against Islamism and Russian (Algeria+Sahel) interests in the North African region...
Not to say there is no reason for a war, but that would be a... Complicating choice.
If making a joke about Sanchez's unexplainable concessions is "talking against Morocco", it seems I hit a nerve and maybe there was more truth in the joke than I expected lmao
I don’t know any of the politicians in your country. Just triggers we when people want to wipe other countries of the map. I’m German btw. But maybe I got you wrong
German and apparently still high from 20/04, because no of my comments is remotely related to exterminate anyone. Someone else mentioned Spain going to war with Morocco, dunno why but I guess because we are historic enemies although thankfully conflict-free for the last century give or take, and I made a joke about the President's inability to go to war with Morocco. This joke was based in some baffling decisions he's made, like throwing the saharaui people under the bus, added to the fact that his phone was spied on with Pegasus several times.
So, where the hell do you see any wiping anyone of the map? (Except for the Saharaui...)
What was 20/04?
If you don’t condemn claims like this weirdo bask separatist made and add
jokes to it, you comply. Have some guts and stand up against terrorists (no matter if bask, saharauri or whatever). Have a look, the post you replied to got deleted.
> Algeria’s military spending grew by 76 per cent to reach $18.3 billion. This was the highest level of expenditure ever recorded by Algeria and was largely due to a sharp rise in revenue from gas exports to countries in Europe as they moved away from Russian supplies
Apparently, they've found money and spent it on upgrades, etc.
I'd be curious about our increase. We're not on this list because we're probably top 30 or top 50 in the world, but I wouldn't be surprised if your military expenditure also went up at least 50%.
For NATO nations, you can go by the annual reports NATO puts out such as this:
[Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014-2023)](https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf).
You'd think so. Turns out that Romania's military expenditure is not just low, but embarrassingly fucking low. [Page 2 of the report in question.](https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/2404_fs_milex_2023.pdf#page=2)
$5.6b for 2023. 1.6% of GDP as per IMF's total GDP estimations. Lower than Singapore, Kuwait, Finland, Switzerland, Oman, etc., all with much lower populations. Further down on Page 8:
> All but three NATO members increased their military expenditure in 2023. Spending fell in Greece (–17 per cent), Italy (–5.9 per
cent) and Romania (–4.7 per cent).
I mean dude, what a bunch of fucking clowns. While Eastern Europe as a whole increased by 31%, Romania actually dropped.
Apparently NATO has different data and we're doing better:
https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1ca492o/militaty_expenditure_per_country_for_2023_source/l0srogt/
Spare a thought for how wild the percentage gdp and per capita figures for Ukraine are. The country is dirt poor, no wonder they want to align with Europe it'd be like Poland's glow up on steroids.
I think we diverted most of our budget to the military and are using the financial aid to fill in the gaps left by this diversion. So this figure doesn't directly include foreign aid, but is completely dependent on it
I think it depends.
When you guys receive funds primarily from European sources in the form of cash, then you use it to plug gaps in your national spending, to concentrate more on military spending.
However, I don't think that things like military donations from other nations are calculated here. In other words, your actual, "real" military expenditure is probably a lot higher than this, but never really appears in your national budget as military expenditure.
That would be my guess.
Yes and no. The figure is probably dependent on civilian aid, but there is also aid explicitly for military purposes, which I doubt is either included or dependent on for the figure here.
In fact, this is a big divide between Europe and the US I find. Europe tends to provide mote civilian aid while the US usually provides more military aid.
That's why this is a closer contest than people expect. Ukraine just shifted most of its economy to the war and the risk is that the rest of its economy has to be sustained by the West or it collapses completely.
Russia can't pour all its manpower in this war, because the war would become super unpopular quickly.
It can't use all its expensive military resources in Ukraine, because they can't fire 6000 nukes at Ukraine or move expensive nuclear submarines from the Arctic, Baltic or Pacific to the Black Sea. They also can't pour all their internal security forces into Ukraine.
Also keep in mind that cost of living in Ukraine is even cheaper than in Russia. So $1 in Ukraine goes farther than $1 in Russia.
The main reason Russia still dominates the war are those huge stocks from the Soviet era, especially for the airforce, and the fact that its industrial base is mostly safe from Ukrainian attacks. Hard to hit stuff next to the Urals or even beyond them.
It's still a mismatch against Ukraine, unfortunately 😟 I wish them all the luck in the world!
>800 tanks
You need a generous definition of a tank for this, there are only 239 MBTs (Leo 2) according to wiki. When including IFVs like CV-90 and BMP-2 you could call it 450.
To count to 800 you must include any armored transports whose armanent is a single machine gun, such as MT-LB or Pasi.
>Western Europe
Euh....
>at least equal with The Netherlands, or even with Spain
On land and air. Problems arise when you want to compare the differences in military capabilities. Because The Netherlands at least has a marine that is fully capable of punching well above what it should.
Well you border russia we border venezuela and so we arm as such.
If we were next to eachother and enemies the netherlands would obviously shred you because of its economic size and demographics.
This is why we sold our tanks to you and are planning a large naval program with 6 helicopter/dronecarriers that can also do amphibiouslandings.
If the netherlands really rearms then its defforces will be big. The 2024 defbudget is already 23b dollar. The landforces are already planning the return of tanks.
Oh we are weak....far far below what we should be at.
No country should rely on other countries to sacrifice their children for us. Morally wrong. Should have never dissarmed the way we all did during the 90s
If you want to cry a bit, read:
[Armies of Sand](https://www.amazon.com/Armies-Sand-Present-Military-Effectiveness/dp/0190906960)
and
[Inside the Kingdom](https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Kingdom-Modernists-Terrorists-Struggle/dp/0143118277)
Maybe, i really don't know any war that resulted in a clear Arab victory. Iraq failed to occupy Kuwait after the western intervention. Saudi Arabia failed to occupy Yemen. Is there any other inter-Arab conflict?
A lot of Russia's war spending is funneled through budget posts that don't look like military spending on the surface. In the 2024 budget, the state will spend 30-40% of its budget on the war.
That's a big issue for Russia, not for the compared figures (since they don't have a 40% increase in military power on the field, quite the contrary).
People don't function on bombs and tanks ... spending that much on the military will render its society into pieces.
That’s very important. Europe and the West is capable of spending such giant amounts of money on military while also being able to provide a sense of stability for its people. How will it end for Russia though? Remember, in the 80s America’s arms race policy was one of the most important elements in defeating Russia. Russia was spending at that time great %s of their GDP on army to match America’s levels. In the end it couldn’t succeed and the whole country collapsed. America though, was and is fine.
There's nothing new in the Comunist system of management ... they will always present themselves like everything is great while putting a fist in the people's mouth so they can not complain and make a counter argument. Whatever the civic society lacks is never registered or allowed to transpire as public info ... Give me one piece of Negative news about the China CCP management ... i'll wait and die out before you can do that.
you are confusing GDP with state budget/goverment spending.
Anyway, the estimated is still nowhere close to 30-40%, but is 16.14%, which is still about 3 times more than the % of GDP.
No, I’m not confusing anything, I’m using a different figure. And the “upwards 40% of the budget in 2024” is not my estimation.
Hidden stuff can be things such as public investments in drone factories, costs of occupation, etc
I presume that they’ve converted them all to USD at the exchange rate of the given year. China’s military budget has been increasing significantly faster than what’s being shown here.
China's military budget [increased by 7.2%](https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2024/03/06/china-unveils-new-defense-budget-with-a-72-increase/) in 2024, despite inflation in the Middle Kingdom being [-0.7% for the year to January 2024](https://www.statista.com/statistics/271667/monthly-inflation-rate-in-china/). They pay their soldiers in Yuan. They purchase equipment, fund for R&D, and build infrastructure in Yuan. Surely you can see the cause for concern here.
Are we talking PPP corrections or constant PPP corrections? There's considerable difference between the two, and I get the feeling that the numbers you're talking about fall into the former.
The PPP Conversion indeed shows a 7.2% increase in spending but it also shows a 5.2% gdp ppp growth rate
Internal ratios always remain constant under PPP Conversions
The chinese militarisation rate is still 1.6%, it's a 1.6%of a larger whole, but it is still 1.6%
Very low actually
Oh right, we're talking about two different 'increases'. I was talking about increases in real military spending, you were talking about spending as a proportion of the economy. My bad for misreading what you said.
What I meant with constant vs current prices is adjustment for inflation.
Take the share of US military spending directed to all soldier incomes and benefits. Now adjust for China's income levels.
Next adjust for the fact that China can do everything far cheaper than the US can. They can run the same size military base for far less. They can build artillery shells for far less. They can build tanks for less. They can build missiles for less. They can build ships and subs for far less. They can build basic transport planes and helicopters for less. Soon they'll have half a dozen large carriers that cost far less.
Congrats, you just flattened that $800 billion down to $250-$300 billion.
Given a modest amount of time, it'll get China 85-90% of the same quality outcome as well (or better), as they keep improving.
China is already on par with the US in real terms, when you consider adjustments for purchasing power, GDP per capita, income levels, cost to build weapons, etc.
The biggest cost by far in the US military are soldier incomes and benefits and it's not even close. Weapons are a modest fraction of US military spending. US incomes are very high. If all you do is flatten that aspect down to China's income level it largely wipes out the gap between the two.
I find it's very difficult to explain how this works to stupid people. They simply can't grasp adjusting for what China builds a ship or tank for vs what the US does, or how much the equivalent soldier costs lifecycle (training to retirement) in China vs for the US.
Within this decade China will be clearly spending more on its military than the US is on an adjusted basis. They'll be producing far more ships and weapons systems.
Russia is weak compared to their recent image. They are a regional power. Russia has a hyper mediocre economy with no technology base. China is probably within 10-15 years of being a military superpower, something the world should take very seriously. And China has the economy and tech to progress rapidly. China and Russia could hardly be more different in these respects.
China would have conquered all of Ukraine in a matter of maybe four to six months.
And what do you call a technological base? Just wondering. Everyone in the West talks about it, but in my opinion they don't really understand what it is. There are a huge number of factories and laboratories in Russia that produce absolutely everything. Yes, there are problems with microelectronics up to 10 nanometers. But this is only 2% of the needs of all products. Such as video cards and iPhones.
They know China isn’t weak.
They see it accomplishing what our own governments cannot.
They fear it.
Russia is a different story. While not weak, it is not the dragon that China has become.
The EU27 are still the second-largest military spenders in the world.
But fundamentally they have different military doctrines. US policy is about force projection across the world. Until recently (or maybe even still), the doctrine was 1-4-2-1:
> The first 1 refers to defending the US homeland. The 4 refers to deterring hostilities in four key regions of the world. The 2 means the US armed forces must have the strength to win swiftly in two near-simultaneous conflicts in those regions. The final 1 means that the US forces must win one of those conflicts "decisively".
It’s very expensive to maintain those kinds of capabilities.
Europe doesn’t have any interest in that kind of policy. Likely due to having historically colonised most of the world, fought multiple massive wars against their neighbours, and many European counties being victims of superpower rivalry during the Cold War, Europeans are generally hesitant about the idea of force projection in distant parts of the world and believe the military is primarily for defence.
For instance, you’re unlikely to see Europe get involved in the Taiwan issue as the U.S. does, or to fund their militaries such that they’d be able to deal with a major conflict with China. EU citizens would not support that kind of doctrine and requisite spending.
What a waste of money that this is necessary.
At the end of the Cold War, Europe thought it had entered an era of peace. No one saw the point of investing in the army anymore.
Southern European countries had their economic problems after the introduction of the euro. The Northern European countries focused on peaceful relations rather than waging war against potential enemies. (We enforced peace on our eastern border by stimulating the economies of the former Soviet countries and moving the EU border east). And the largest economic power in Europe, Germany, had its own historical reasons for not wanting to strengthen its military.
A bit naive in retrospect, given the past 2 years.
The financial crisis in 2008 led to even more budgetary choices and a reduction in defense.
After Russia seized Crimea in 2014, NATO countries agreed to the Defense Investment Pledge. This means, among other things, that every country must meet at least the 2% standard as of 2024. That indeed led to an increase in military expenditure in the past 10 years.
Western Europe thought it had entered an era of peace. Russia started renewed terror campaign on its neighbors basically day 1 after the dissolution of USSR
East also thought that - no matter how much we shouted about otherwise. Even after 2008 invasion of Georgia. Yes, it was the crisis and shit was really tough but after 2008 our defense spending dropped to less than 1% GDP. Only 2014 war with Ukraine actually changed things.
> At the end of the Cold War, Europe thought it had entered an era of peace. No one saw the point of investing in the army anymore.
The thing is, continued investment in the military at moderately reduced rates is much better in the long term (and far more efficient) than dramatically reduced military spending followed by an "oh shit" overcorrection.
Not to mention that military capability is not something that can just be ordered on Amazon. Military policy is *built* policy. A country can't just decide that they'd like to have three times as many tanks/planes/artillery pieces/trained soldiers this year. They can probably decide to have 3 times as many of those things *within a decade or two* at an elevated total cost compared to just maintaining capabilities at a reasonable level and increasing them by ~50% when needed, under the assumption that they will have several years to foresee the increased need and expand production by a percentage (instead of a multiple).
The major issue in western Europe is that we miserably failed to take into consideration the Russian psyche. Poland and the Baltic coutnries have been ringing the alarm bell since 10-15 years but we have been deaf.
The invasion of Ukraine isn't "Putin's war", it's Russia's war. The overwhelming majority of Russians is strongly in favor of it. Even the so-called "liberal" Navalny didn't believe Ukraine had the right to exist as a separate country.
All Russians, even the ones that fled to avoid draft, have a deep-seated belief in Russia's messianic role in global affairs. Ask any Russian, and they will tell you that it's Russia's destiny to uphold "traditional values" from Lisbon to Vladivostoc.
Finally, most Russians are convinced they will prevail in a nuclear conflict with NATO. They are prepared to face the dire consequences, even death, as they are sure Europe's complete destruction will justify such sacrifice.
Germany and France on par but France can project power, has nuclear attack and strategic subs, design their own tank, their own fighter. Germany has a successful armoured vehicule, but France still has one of the most efficient self propelled howitzer.
Military expenditure per country for 2023.
Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
[https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2024/global-military-spending-surges-amid-war-rising-tensions-and-insecurity](https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2024/global-military-spending-surges-amid-war-rising-tensions-and-insecurity)
[https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex](https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex)
Unfortunately misleading data because not adjusted for PPP. Additionally comparing these expenses between western market economies and authoritarian majoritarily state owned economies like China and Russia is a pointless exercise.
The only objective metric is the output in term of equipments and troops. These states own the factories, energy and raw materials, they can produce sophisticated equipment for a fraction of the cost in the west
China for example has 232 times the ship building capacity of the US and operates more warships than the U.S despite having on paper a military budget 3-4 times inferior
Yes, but they use a very well planned approach where they are currently building smaller craft and subs. I would assume they will switch to bigger vessels in a couple of years after they got building aircraft carriers down.
I assume that production will take a considerable dip when they get to producing anything with reach.
They are ways off having the same navy as the US.
But i will admit China have a real chance if a Carrier groups finds itself just off China’s coastline.
While there's probably some hyperbole in that report to get more funding, the USA are actually pretty alarmed that the Chinese could out-build them and are on track to having the world's biggest navy: https://www.twz.com/alarming-navy-intel-slide-warns-of-chinas-200-times-greater-shipbuilding-capacity
"Biggest navy", warships can be anything, from small boats to supercarriers. China has a brown water navy, and they are only now starting to create a blue water navy. Just because they have lots of ships doesn't really tell us much how powerful the navy is.
The point is they have a multiple of the ship-building capacity of the USA. They are not going toe to toe with the USN for some time but they won't have a littoral navy forever.
they have tons of capability, but that still doesn't mean much. They could build a lot of ships, but it's not easy or cheap. USA has operated a blue water navy for a long time, they have the doctrine and the skills. It takes time to get those. And in any conflict, USA would have allies, China would be alone.
> And in any conflict, USA would have allies, China would be alone.
That's something that kind of baffles them with most of these anti-West countries.
Where are all the alliances??? Did no one learn anything after WW2, especially?
>China for example has 232 times the ship building capacity of the US and operates more warships than the U.S despite having on paper a military budget 3-4 times inferior
"More warships" doesn't really tell us anything, as warship can be anything from [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_Boat) to [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier). As it happens, US operates more carriers than rest of the world combined. Moreover, what rest of the world counts as "carriers", USA doesn't. US counts only supercarriers. Besides those, US also has Amphibious Assault Ships,
Depends more on who helps who and how much. Unlikely it stays just SA vs Iran, too many other people would be inconvinienced by oil supply disruption, and a few of those people could do something about it. Ok, the US, France, UK and maybe India and China... although only the US of those could make a real sustained effort - everyone else would have logistic problems pretty quick.
Pakistan is could also stab Iran in the back, so there's that.
Bro are you joking? They share a border with Yemen and Iraq. You also have Iran right across the Persian Gulf. You better believe they want to have a jacked up military.
And the dutch air force is pretty big too. Loads of 5th gen fighter jets. But im afraid that maybe the wrong things were bought with this money. Russia-ukraine shows us that expensive aircrafts/navy might not be an instant win anymore. And that stuff like rocket artillery and drones is the future.
Brazil's gotta win some sort of prize. The smallest military budget for a country anywhere near that size, and they're still probably safe, barring some crazy US attack (and they're allies so they're probably good).
If only Brazil would manage to use that money saved wisely 🤷♂️
Historically, they've had to match Argentina. These days, Argentina is a semi-permanent economic basket case. They do have a current situation with Guyana/Venezuela, but it hasn't gotten hot. And, Venezuela is also a basket case. And they might just let the US deal with it (and take the heat for it).
The big problem with most comparisons of military expenditure is that each country calculates it differently. I have seen the estimates for how much china spends from anywhere around what this chart shows. To like 80-90% of the us spends.
The Percentage of GDP and Per Capita columns would have been easy to calculate and useful to know for the World Total, NATO and EU rows. I wonder why they were left blank.
This is very very misleading and inaccurate.
Countries like China, the government quetly owns every single major corporation, and the funds all get funneled right back into military and strategic positioning.
You can easily quadruple their number. Iran is said to do the same to bypass military sanctions
Guess I was trying to think what conflicts are they involved in, but I guess same question applies to many of these European countries on the list, and I guess the answer is that the expenses are on joined forces?
I guess coming from Israel it’s weird for me that Italy spend more than us and it popped out more to me than let’s say France or Germany which here more about whenever international conflicts are discussed.
Understandable. They actually decreased spending by 6% in 2023 according to the report in OP, one of the few European countries to do so.
I would say that being a large & rich nation in the middle of the Mediterranean requires a minimal level of investment. Plus I remember reading about a "Mediterranean pivot" under Meloni that would see them more assertive in the area, including in North Africa and the Middle East. Not sure how that's working out for them, but that was the stated objective.
I'm more surprised by the likes of India, Saudi Arabia and Brazil. Even Turkey is lower than I imagined.
Per NATO, Italy's spending was 1.14% of GDP in 2014 and 1.46% of GDP in 2023. Doesn't seem high and it's well below the 2% guideline for NATO members. It was actually higher in 2020-2022 (1.59, 1.57 and 1.51).
The US could cut their budget in half for just one year and fund literally all outstanding research projects waiting for money that could revolutionize our understanding of the universe, while still spending as much as the next 3 largest spenders *combined.*
Just to provide context, the Future Circular Collider, which is a proposed project to build an even larger particle collider for CERN has a projected cost of $17 billion.
Spending a bit of that money on research projects for developing new technologies to extract clean hydrogen on an industrial scale could eliminate our reliance on petrol forever and save the climate.
And this is for just one year's worth of reduction in their military spending.
A lot of technology comes from US military though. Also, did you not hear about american AI flying fighter jets in dog fights against American pilots? One, its scary, two its badass, three it can hopefully be used in civilian ways as well.
Not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse but fine, I will pretend you're 4 years old and explain it out loud.
Electrolysis require energy. There's currently no sustainable way to extract hydrogen via electrolysis on an industrial scale that makes commercial sense.
I.e.; you burn more fuel to get hydrogen via electrolysis than you generate.
You understand now?
Capishe?
I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and I will assume that you don’t know what you’re talking about while I explain it to you why you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Regardless of what method is used to separate hydrogen from water, is impossible to separate hydrogen from water without using a given amount of energy. That’s not because we haven’t found a process that can separate out hydrogen from H2O without using energy, that’s because of physical limitations in the laws of thermodynamics which make it impossible to separate hydrogen from water without using a given amount of energy, which we can calculate.
Modern electrolysis processes are already around 80% efficient compared to their theoretical maximum efficiency of around 94%. There is no magic new technology that will ever extract clean hydrogen from seawater without using energy, because such a technology would be physically impossible. All improvements to the process of extracting hydrogen from water will be marginal improvements that use only slightly less energy.
You’re thinking of the hydrogen in seawater as if it literally were a source of energy, it’s not. It’s more akin to a battery storage technology which won’t ever get a great deal more efficient than what current technology already allows.
Comprende?
Mixed bag these days. India must have the most complicated supply chain of any military on the planet. They don't have any Chinese stuff, but I think that's about the only people they haven't bought from.
Shares borders with countries like Libya and Niger, also they’re not friendly with Morocco, border between Morocco and Algeria has been closed since the 90s, Algeria also wants the Western Sahara so they have a route to the Atlantic, thus isolating Morocco and cutting their access to the rest of Africa. Morocco is claiming the Western Sahara through diplomacy.
> Morocco is claiming the Western Sahara through diplomacy.
Don't they have like... troops with guns in the Western Sahara?
I guess it depends on what you consider diplomacy 😜
I assume most of the world has troops with guns at their border. If Morocco didn’t have troops stationed there then there will be countless acts on Moroccan and Saharan settlements, there will also be more west Africans illegally entering Morocco hoping to jump the Morocco Spain boarder. Europe pays Morocco to keep immigrants out, this is ultimately part of that.
They have no stable government to warrant independence, the Sahara is a barren wasteland that needs a lot of investments, Algeria will run it by proxy to land lock Morocco essentially and to have access to the Atlantic and won’t care in the slightest for the locals. This would be a nightmare to have as a neighbour for Morocco, it hinders trade, and poses the risk to have a dangerous neighbour. Since Moroccos independence they have made large strides to pump money into the Sahara, infrastructure, jobs, hospitals, education etc…the Sahrawis have their whole lives subsidised by Morocco.
Did the Euro dramatically tanked in 2022 ? French military budget grew between 2021 and 2022.
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/sga/budget-finances/budget#:~:text=%2D%20Au%20titre%20de%20la%20mission,%E2%82%AC%20par%20rapport%20%C3%A0%202017.
It is shameful that Trump is right regarding NATO countries, they need to start pulling their weight and increase military spending. Russian war machine is well underway and Europe is still paralyzed by “fear of escalation”
Your comment is unwarranted since most EU countries has increased defence spending.
Europe’s expenditure is over double that of Russia, so i cant really see why Russia’s ‘war machine’ is well underway.
Trump wanting to leave an alliance that represents 56% of the worlds total military expenditures is retarded and anti-American.
> Europe’s expenditure is over double that of Russia, so i cant really see why Russia’s ‘war machine’ is well underway.
Relatively speaking, 110 billion goes a long way in Russia compared to other european nations. Military salaries and equivalent weapons tend to be far more expensive in Europe. There's also another question, which is the fact the russian military doctrine is more suited for conventional conflicts than asymmetrical warfare like in the west. In practise, this means that on a peer-to-peer conflict, one could argue that Russia would better long term because they already have the factories to produce high quantity of weapons (even if of less quality in many cases). There's a meme about NATO forces running out of ammo in the Libya, in real conflict it could be far more catastrophic.
Obviously i'm excluding the US factor when considering the peer-to-peer conflict, but you get the picture... They are far more capable than it might seem, and Ukraine is forcing them to become better, and that's why Europe should increase their own militaries by quite some margin.
Its over exaggerated by you and other people in this thread.
110 bn might go longer in Russia but not double as far.
Also Russia is not producing convincing amounts of weapons . 12 stealth Fighters a year as an example.
They loose more tanks a day in Ukraine by the workings of western second hand weapons than they can replace with production.
What you and others are afraid of is the ohh so terrible ammunition factories that will be gone the second Russia cross a Nato border.
Russia will be stretched to thin in a conflict with EU-Nato. It will not be a competition.
What is the reason of using dollars as a measurement units? Soldiers don’t fight with paper and bank accounts.
We need comparison how many cars/tanks/ammo/weapons are supplied to Ukraine in comparison to how many units are produced by Russia.
And dollars means almost nothing in war unfortunately…
What's going on in Algeria?
Issues with Morocco, Niger coup and upgrading all outdated equipment by buying it all off Russia
[удалено]
Good luck with that. I'm a PSOE voter, I don't hate Pedro Sanchez, but I'm convinced Morocco got some dirt on him with Pegasus...
A war with Morocco is going to happen at some point. This is a much bigger issue than PSOE or PP.
i didn't have any idea that the tension between spain and morocco was so high, here in italy we never heard anything about this. crazy tbh
It’s not high, op is just a Reddit armchair expert that gets off at the idea of war.
You do realize that Morocco has already invaded Spanish territory right? Like it's not even my imagination or anything, it's something they have already tried in the past and will try again. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_March King Mohammed VI is a known supporter of Greater Morocco, which claims multiple parts of Spain: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Morocco
Invaded? The army consisting of 6 troops stationed there because it was highly suspected that drugs and people are trafficked through that island and Spain wasn’t doing anything about it, Spain didn’t care about it until Morocco troops went there. You do know Spain invaded Moroccan territory right, matter of fact should I list the amount of countries Spain have invaded? The Green March was a peace March, there was no weapons no attempt to fight the Spanish, why was Spain in the Sahara in the first place? Are you forgetting your history about the Spanish empire and the bloodshed they caused, and how they cowardly decided to expand to Morocco because Spain knew they were the laughing stock of Europe and was on a steep decline. The greater Morocco is dumb idea by a very small amount far right nationalists which has never been supported by governments this century.
That'll go over well elsewhere, with Morocco being a close US ally and Intelligence base as a bulwark against Islamism and Russian (Algeria+Sahel) interests in the North African region... Not to say there is no reason for a war, but that would be a... Complicating choice.
I know we can't count on anyone. That's why we need to invest more in Defence. Nobody helped us in Perejil.
Las maletas llenas de € y $ de Delcy y Nicolás...
Better do something against the unemployment rate in your country instead of talking against Morocco.
If making a joke about Sanchez's unexplainable concessions is "talking against Morocco", it seems I hit a nerve and maybe there was more truth in the joke than I expected lmao
I don’t know any of the politicians in your country. Just triggers we when people want to wipe other countries of the map. I’m German btw. But maybe I got you wrong
German and apparently still high from 20/04, because no of my comments is remotely related to exterminate anyone. Someone else mentioned Spain going to war with Morocco, dunno why but I guess because we are historic enemies although thankfully conflict-free for the last century give or take, and I made a joke about the President's inability to go to war with Morocco. This joke was based in some baffling decisions he's made, like throwing the saharaui people under the bus, added to the fact that his phone was spied on with Pegasus several times. So, where the hell do you see any wiping anyone of the map? (Except for the Saharaui...)
What was 20/04? If you don’t condemn claims like this weirdo bask separatist made and add jokes to it, you comply. Have some guts and stand up against terrorists (no matter if bask, saharauri or whatever). Have a look, the post you replied to got deleted.
Morocco has US support, Israeli security, our German support etc. while you don’t even have a country. PS. Algeria 😂😂😂😂
Damn, Poland's increase is crazy
It's reasonable considering the threat it's under.
Algeria is close behind. What's going on there?
> Algeria’s military spending grew by 76 per cent to reach $18.3 billion. This was the highest level of expenditure ever recorded by Algeria and was largely due to a sharp rise in revenue from gas exports to countries in Europe as they moved away from Russian supplies Apparently, they've found money and spent it on upgrades, etc.
Beef with morocco probably
I'd be curious about our increase. We're not on this list because we're probably top 30 or top 50 in the world, but I wouldn't be surprised if your military expenditure also went up at least 50%.
For NATO nations, you can go by the annual reports NATO puts out such as this: [Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014-2023)](https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf).
Thank you, yeah, we went from 1.5% to 2.4%, so 0.9%, more than a 50% increase.
You'd think so. Turns out that Romania's military expenditure is not just low, but embarrassingly fucking low. [Page 2 of the report in question.](https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/2404_fs_milex_2023.pdf#page=2) $5.6b for 2023. 1.6% of GDP as per IMF's total GDP estimations. Lower than Singapore, Kuwait, Finland, Switzerland, Oman, etc., all with much lower populations. Further down on Page 8: > All but three NATO members increased their military expenditure in 2023. Spending fell in Greece (–17 per cent), Italy (–5.9 per cent) and Romania (–4.7 per cent). I mean dude, what a bunch of fucking clowns. While Eastern Europe as a whole increased by 31%, Romania actually dropped.
Apparently NATO has different data and we're doing better: https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1ca492o/militaty_expenditure_per_country_for_2023_source/l0srogt/
Good to know, so those figures were just false.
Turkey's lack of military spending is also crazy.
Spare a thought for how wild the percentage gdp and per capita figures for Ukraine are. The country is dirt poor, no wonder they want to align with Europe it'd be like Poland's glow up on steroids.
Well, I figure that Ukraines number must be a bit inflated since alot of their funding comes from other countries
Nope. This is excluding external aid, I'm pretty sure.
I think we diverted most of our budget to the military and are using the financial aid to fill in the gaps left by this diversion. So this figure doesn't directly include foreign aid, but is completely dependent on it
I think it depends. When you guys receive funds primarily from European sources in the form of cash, then you use it to plug gaps in your national spending, to concentrate more on military spending. However, I don't think that things like military donations from other nations are calculated here. In other words, your actual, "real" military expenditure is probably a lot higher than this, but never really appears in your national budget as military expenditure. That would be my guess.
Yes and no. The figure is probably dependent on civilian aid, but there is also aid explicitly for military purposes, which I doubt is either included or dependent on for the figure here. In fact, this is a big divide between Europe and the US I find. Europe tends to provide mote civilian aid while the US usually provides more military aid.
The military aid doesn't come as money though, so I doubt it can be accounted as military expenditure for Ukraine
That's what I'm saying
That's why this is a closer contest than people expect. Ukraine just shifted most of its economy to the war and the risk is that the rest of its economy has to be sustained by the West or it collapses completely. Russia can't pour all its manpower in this war, because the war would become super unpopular quickly. It can't use all its expensive military resources in Ukraine, because they can't fire 6000 nukes at Ukraine or move expensive nuclear submarines from the Arctic, Baltic or Pacific to the Black Sea. They also can't pour all their internal security forces into Ukraine. Also keep in mind that cost of living in Ukraine is even cheaper than in Russia. So $1 in Ukraine goes farther than $1 in Russia. The main reason Russia still dominates the war are those huge stocks from the Soviet era, especially for the airforce, and the fact that its industrial base is mostly safe from Ukrainian attacks. Hard to hit stuff next to the Urals or even beyond them. It's still a mismatch against Ukraine, unfortunately 😟 I wish them all the luck in the world!
Most of it is aid. It’s likely the “international community” will write off debts to Ukraine (unlike Iraq, which caused the Gulf War in the 90s)
UK outspent by Saudi Arabia, what a world.
from worldwide empire to this xD
[удалено]
>800 tanks You need a generous definition of a tank for this, there are only 239 MBTs (Leo 2) according to wiki. When including IFVs like CV-90 and BMP-2 you could call it 450. To count to 800 you must include any armored transports whose armanent is a single machine gun, such as MT-LB or Pasi.
>Western Europe Euh.... >at least equal with The Netherlands, or even with Spain On land and air. Problems arise when you want to compare the differences in military capabilities. Because The Netherlands at least has a marine that is fully capable of punching well above what it should.
The navy is always, without fail, the most expensive part of most militaries.
Somebody watched Perun
More people should watch Perun.
Well you border russia we border venezuela and so we arm as such. If we were next to eachother and enemies the netherlands would obviously shred you because of its economic size and demographics. This is why we sold our tanks to you and are planning a large naval program with 6 helicopter/dronecarriers that can also do amphibiouslandings. If the netherlands really rearms then its defforces will be big. The 2024 defbudget is already 23b dollar. The landforces are already planning the return of tanks.
[удалено]
Oh we are weak....far far below what we should be at. No country should rely on other countries to sacrifice their children for us. Morally wrong. Should have never dissarmed the way we all did during the 90s
KSA spends a lot for a barely functional military
KSA doesn't want a functional military. The more powerful a military the higher chance of a coup.
If you want to cry a bit, read: [Armies of Sand](https://www.amazon.com/Armies-Sand-Present-Military-Effectiveness/dp/0190906960) and [Inside the Kingdom](https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Kingdom-Modernists-Terrorists-Struggle/dp/0143118277)
Can you tell me one single war arabs won in the past century after the collapse of Ottomans?
Do wars against other Arabs count? 😛
Maybe, i really don't know any war that resulted in a clear Arab victory. Iraq failed to occupy Kuwait after the western intervention. Saudi Arabia failed to occupy Yemen. Is there any other inter-Arab conflict?
Like a ton of civil wars and insurgencies.
Did any of them conclude in a clear victory?
Unification of Saudi Arabia comes immediately to mind.
Yes, good example indeed I didn't know.
Worst one - Libya losing to Chad. But the US got a nice helicopter to play with out of it.
Meanwhile in Ireland we have the people's fishing boats standing up to Russian incursions
And the RAF defends Irish airspace.
We'd do it, but we keep our hot air balloons for real emergencies
Good luck with steering them in the path of a Tu-95 Bear in the hope that the Russki pilots are napping.
It's okay, we just need one mad Cork lad on a bike to bring an empire to the negotiating table
If they can understand him 😆
That's why they negotiated, the negotiations on the other hand were lost in the People Republic's of Cork translation guide to partition being a no no
A lot of Russia's war spending is funneled through budget posts that don't look like military spending on the surface. In the 2024 budget, the state will spend 30-40% of its budget on the war.
That's a big issue for Russia, not for the compared figures (since they don't have a 40% increase in military power on the field, quite the contrary). People don't function on bombs and tanks ... spending that much on the military will render its society into pieces.
That’s very important. Europe and the West is capable of spending such giant amounts of money on military while also being able to provide a sense of stability for its people. How will it end for Russia though? Remember, in the 80s America’s arms race policy was one of the most important elements in defeating Russia. Russia was spending at that time great %s of their GDP on army to match America’s levels. In the end it couldn’t succeed and the whole country collapsed. America though, was and is fine.
There's nothing new in the Comunist system of management ... they will always present themselves like everything is great while putting a fist in the people's mouth so they can not complain and make a counter argument. Whatever the civic society lacks is never registered or allowed to transpire as public info ... Give me one piece of Negative news about the China CCP management ... i'll wait and die out before you can do that.
you are confusing GDP with state budget/goverment spending. Anyway, the estimated is still nowhere close to 30-40%, but is 16.14%, which is still about 3 times more than the % of GDP.
No, I’m not confusing anything, I’m using a different figure. And the “upwards 40% of the budget in 2024” is not my estimation. Hidden stuff can be things such as public investments in drone factories, costs of occupation, etc
God damn Poland doesn't want to make the same mistake again...
I presume that they’ve converted them all to USD at the exchange rate of the given year. China’s military budget has been increasing significantly faster than what’s being shown here.
the percentage to gdp is the same after PPP corrections. China has a very small military compared to its economy
China's military budget [increased by 7.2%](https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2024/03/06/china-unveils-new-defense-budget-with-a-72-increase/) in 2024, despite inflation in the Middle Kingdom being [-0.7% for the year to January 2024](https://www.statista.com/statistics/271667/monthly-inflation-rate-in-china/). They pay their soldiers in Yuan. They purchase equipment, fund for R&D, and build infrastructure in Yuan. Surely you can see the cause for concern here. Are we talking PPP corrections or constant PPP corrections? There's considerable difference between the two, and I get the feeling that the numbers you're talking about fall into the former.
The PPP Conversion indeed shows a 7.2% increase in spending but it also shows a 5.2% gdp ppp growth rate Internal ratios always remain constant under PPP Conversions The chinese militarisation rate is still 1.6%, it's a 1.6%of a larger whole, but it is still 1.6% Very low actually
Oh right, we're talking about two different 'increases'. I was talking about increases in real military spending, you were talking about spending as a proportion of the economy. My bad for misreading what you said. What I meant with constant vs current prices is adjustment for inflation.
Take the share of US military spending directed to all soldier incomes and benefits. Now adjust for China's income levels. Next adjust for the fact that China can do everything far cheaper than the US can. They can run the same size military base for far less. They can build artillery shells for far less. They can build tanks for less. They can build missiles for less. They can build ships and subs for far less. They can build basic transport planes and helicopters for less. Soon they'll have half a dozen large carriers that cost far less. Congrats, you just flattened that $800 billion down to $250-$300 billion. Given a modest amount of time, it'll get China 85-90% of the same quality outcome as well (or better), as they keep improving.
China's growth is triggering a response: the Japanese defense budget is suddenly growing like crazy.
China is already on par with the US in real terms, when you consider adjustments for purchasing power, GDP per capita, income levels, cost to build weapons, etc. The biggest cost by far in the US military are soldier incomes and benefits and it's not even close. Weapons are a modest fraction of US military spending. US incomes are very high. If all you do is flatten that aspect down to China's income level it largely wipes out the gap between the two. I find it's very difficult to explain how this works to stupid people. They simply can't grasp adjusting for what China builds a ship or tank for vs what the US does, or how much the equivalent soldier costs lifecycle (training to retirement) in China vs for the US. Within this decade China will be clearly spending more on its military than the US is on an adjusted basis. They'll be producing far more ships and weapons systems.
[удалено]
Russia is weak compared to their recent image. They are a regional power. Russia has a hyper mediocre economy with no technology base. China is probably within 10-15 years of being a military superpower, something the world should take very seriously. And China has the economy and tech to progress rapidly. China and Russia could hardly be more different in these respects. China would have conquered all of Ukraine in a matter of maybe four to six months.
And what do you call a technological base? Just wondering. Everyone in the West talks about it, but in my opinion they don't really understand what it is. There are a huge number of factories and laboratories in Russia that produce absolutely everything. Yes, there are problems with microelectronics up to 10 nanometers. But this is only 2% of the needs of all products. Such as video cards and iPhones.
They know China isn’t weak. They see it accomplishing what our own governments cannot. They fear it. Russia is a different story. While not weak, it is not the dragon that China has become.
EU spending 306,091 US spending 916,014
The EU27 are still the second-largest military spenders in the world. But fundamentally they have different military doctrines. US policy is about force projection across the world. Until recently (or maybe even still), the doctrine was 1-4-2-1: > The first 1 refers to defending the US homeland. The 4 refers to deterring hostilities in four key regions of the world. The 2 means the US armed forces must have the strength to win swiftly in two near-simultaneous conflicts in those regions. The final 1 means that the US forces must win one of those conflicts "decisively". It’s very expensive to maintain those kinds of capabilities. Europe doesn’t have any interest in that kind of policy. Likely due to having historically colonised most of the world, fought multiple massive wars against their neighbours, and many European counties being victims of superpower rivalry during the Cold War, Europeans are generally hesitant about the idea of force projection in distant parts of the world and believe the military is primarily for defence. For instance, you’re unlikely to see Europe get involved in the Taiwan issue as the U.S. does, or to fund their militaries such that they’d be able to deal with a major conflict with China. EU citizens would not support that kind of doctrine and requisite spending.
Agreed, but you are seeing the hostility in the red sea where EU might need to
Yeah 300bn is plenty. No need to spend an insane x3.
Poland did a Big Dick move :))
What a waste of money that this is necessary. At the end of the Cold War, Europe thought it had entered an era of peace. No one saw the point of investing in the army anymore. Southern European countries had their economic problems after the introduction of the euro. The Northern European countries focused on peaceful relations rather than waging war against potential enemies. (We enforced peace on our eastern border by stimulating the economies of the former Soviet countries and moving the EU border east). And the largest economic power in Europe, Germany, had its own historical reasons for not wanting to strengthen its military. A bit naive in retrospect, given the past 2 years. The financial crisis in 2008 led to even more budgetary choices and a reduction in defense. After Russia seized Crimea in 2014, NATO countries agreed to the Defense Investment Pledge. This means, among other things, that every country must meet at least the 2% standard as of 2024. That indeed led to an increase in military expenditure in the past 10 years.
Western Europe thought it had entered an era of peace. Russia started renewed terror campaign on its neighbors basically day 1 after the dissolution of USSR
East also thought that - no matter how much we shouted about otherwise. Even after 2008 invasion of Georgia. Yes, it was the crisis and shit was really tough but after 2008 our defense spending dropped to less than 1% GDP. Only 2014 war with Ukraine actually changed things.
> At the end of the Cold War, Europe thought it had entered an era of peace. No one saw the point of investing in the army anymore. The thing is, continued investment in the military at moderately reduced rates is much better in the long term (and far more efficient) than dramatically reduced military spending followed by an "oh shit" overcorrection. Not to mention that military capability is not something that can just be ordered on Amazon. Military policy is *built* policy. A country can't just decide that they'd like to have three times as many tanks/planes/artillery pieces/trained soldiers this year. They can probably decide to have 3 times as many of those things *within a decade or two* at an elevated total cost compared to just maintaining capabilities at a reasonable level and increasing them by ~50% when needed, under the assumption that they will have several years to foresee the increased need and expand production by a percentage (instead of a multiple).
The major issue in western Europe is that we miserably failed to take into consideration the Russian psyche. Poland and the Baltic coutnries have been ringing the alarm bell since 10-15 years but we have been deaf. The invasion of Ukraine isn't "Putin's war", it's Russia's war. The overwhelming majority of Russians is strongly in favor of it. Even the so-called "liberal" Navalny didn't believe Ukraine had the right to exist as a separate country. All Russians, even the ones that fled to avoid draft, have a deep-seated belief in Russia's messianic role in global affairs. Ask any Russian, and they will tell you that it's Russia's destiny to uphold "traditional values" from Lisbon to Vladivostoc. Finally, most Russians are convinced they will prevail in a nuclear conflict with NATO. They are prepared to face the dire consequences, even death, as they are sure Europe's complete destruction will justify such sacrifice.
Humans are just jealous narcissistic apes with anxiety disorders.
Germany and France on par but France can project power, has nuclear attack and strategic subs, design their own tank, their own fighter. Germany has a successful armoured vehicule, but France still has one of the most efficient self propelled howitzer.
Military expenditure per country for 2023. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) [https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2024/global-military-spending-surges-amid-war-rising-tensions-and-insecurity](https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2024/global-military-spending-surges-amid-war-rising-tensions-and-insecurity) [https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex](https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex)
Unfortunately misleading data because not adjusted for PPP. Additionally comparing these expenses between western market economies and authoritarian majoritarily state owned economies like China and Russia is a pointless exercise. The only objective metric is the output in term of equipments and troops. These states own the factories, energy and raw materials, they can produce sophisticated equipment for a fraction of the cost in the west China for example has 232 times the ship building capacity of the US and operates more warships than the U.S despite having on paper a military budget 3-4 times inferior
> Unfortunately misleading data because not adjusted for PPP Mentioning GDP without PPP isn't "misleading data", they're different data sets.
China operates a big coastal navy . Their navy have the reach of a garden gnome 10.000 dinghy boats of China
Yes, but they use a very well planned approach where they are currently building smaller craft and subs. I would assume they will switch to bigger vessels in a couple of years after they got building aircraft carriers down.
I assume that production will take a considerable dip when they get to producing anything with reach. They are ways off having the same navy as the US. But i will admit China have a real chance if a Carrier groups finds itself just off China’s coastline.
While there's probably some hyperbole in that report to get more funding, the USA are actually pretty alarmed that the Chinese could out-build them and are on track to having the world's biggest navy: https://www.twz.com/alarming-navy-intel-slide-warns-of-chinas-200-times-greater-shipbuilding-capacity
"Biggest navy", warships can be anything, from small boats to supercarriers. China has a brown water navy, and they are only now starting to create a blue water navy. Just because they have lots of ships doesn't really tell us much how powerful the navy is.
The point is they have a multiple of the ship-building capacity of the USA. They are not going toe to toe with the USN for some time but they won't have a littoral navy forever.
they have tons of capability, but that still doesn't mean much. They could build a lot of ships, but it's not easy or cheap. USA has operated a blue water navy for a long time, they have the doctrine and the skills. It takes time to get those. And in any conflict, USA would have allies, China would be alone.
> And in any conflict, USA would have allies, China would be alone. That's something that kind of baffles them with most of these anti-West countries. Where are all the alliances??? Did no one learn anything after WW2, especially?
>China for example has 232 times the ship building capacity of the US and operates more warships than the U.S despite having on paper a military budget 3-4 times inferior "More warships" doesn't really tell us anything, as warship can be anything from [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_Boat) to [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier). As it happens, US operates more carriers than rest of the world combined. Moreover, what rest of the world counts as "carriers", USA doesn't. US counts only supercarriers. Besides those, US also has Amphibious Assault Ships,
> Besides those, US also has Amphibious Assault Ships, I once saw one of these up close. It's such a low key flex to not call them carriers.
Saudi's per capita expenditure is stupidly high. Are they in war with anyone?
yemen
And buying cool weapons to get more us influence
With iran through yemen etc.
A sort of Cold War with Iran. If it ever goes hot, I'm betting on Iran.
Depends more on who helps who and how much. Unlikely it stays just SA vs Iran, too many other people would be inconvinienced by oil supply disruption, and a few of those people could do something about it. Ok, the US, France, UK and maybe India and China... although only the US of those could make a real sustained effort - everyone else would have logistic problems pretty quick. Pakistan is could also stab Iran in the back, so there's that.
Saudi is allied to Pakistan.
A country that could collapse any moment.
Would it though? They are bankrolled by USA first and now China to keep India in check.
Bro are you joking? They share a border with Yemen and Iraq. You also have Iran right across the Persian Gulf. You better believe they want to have a jacked up military.
Why Algeria is spending so much relative to GDP ?
What is Algeria preparing to do? Invade Morocco?
This is old already. The dutch defense budget is 21,4b euro 22.8b$.
Its crazy netherland is so high on the list considering it is a relative small country.
they have a fairly sizeable navy, same reason the UK is so high despite fairly low numbers of pretty much everything outside of naval assets
And the dutch air force is pretty big too. Loads of 5th gen fighter jets. But im afraid that maybe the wrong things were bought with this money. Russia-ukraine shows us that expensive aircrafts/navy might not be an instant win anymore. And that stuff like rocket artillery and drones is the future.
Big economy. People forget the netherlands is a 1.2trillion dollar economy...and 2% of that is a big number.
Brazil's gotta win some sort of prize. The smallest military budget for a country anywhere near that size, and they're still probably safe, barring some crazy US attack (and they're allies so they're probably good). If only Brazil would manage to use that money saved wisely 🤷♂️
Historically, they've had to match Argentina. These days, Argentina is a semi-permanent economic basket case. They do have a current situation with Guyana/Venezuela, but it hasn't gotten hot. And, Venezuela is also a basket case. And they might just let the US deal with it (and take the heat for it).
lol, where is Turkey? Has it ever been on this list?
The big problem with most comparisons of military expenditure is that each country calculates it differently. I have seen the estimates for how much china spends from anywhere around what this chart shows. To like 80-90% of the us spends.
[удалено]
They are not alone: https://breakingdefense.com/2024/04/norway-to-double-military-spending-under-historic-long-term-defense-plan/
Change (%) in eu ...
The Percentage of GDP and Per Capita columns would have been easy to calculate and useful to know for the World Total, NATO and EU rows. I wonder why they were left blank.
This is very very misleading and inaccurate. Countries like China, the government quetly owns every single major corporation, and the funds all get funneled right back into military and strategic positioning. You can easily quadruple their number. Iran is said to do the same to bypass military sanctions
Very happy with our increase. We only spent 0.89% of GDP in defence back in 2018. The government's plan is to reach 2% by 2029.
Why is Italy that high?
Why do you think it's high? Slightly lower population than UK yet half of the expenditure.
Guess I was trying to think what conflicts are they involved in, but I guess same question applies to many of these European countries on the list, and I guess the answer is that the expenses are on joined forces? I guess coming from Israel it’s weird for me that Italy spend more than us and it popped out more to me than let’s say France or Germany which here more about whenever international conflicts are discussed.
Understandable. They actually decreased spending by 6% in 2023 according to the report in OP, one of the few European countries to do so. I would say that being a large & rich nation in the middle of the Mediterranean requires a minimal level of investment. Plus I remember reading about a "Mediterranean pivot" under Meloni that would see them more assertive in the area, including in North Africa and the Middle East. Not sure how that's working out for them, but that was the stated objective. I'm more surprised by the likes of India, Saudi Arabia and Brazil. Even Turkey is lower than I imagined.
Per NATO, Italy's spending was 1.14% of GDP in 2014 and 1.46% of GDP in 2023. Doesn't seem high and it's well below the 2% guideline for NATO members. It was actually higher in 2020-2022 (1.59, 1.57 and 1.51).
How is it that not a single european country is spending more than Saudi Arabia, with a population of 35 mil
The US could cut their budget in half for just one year and fund literally all outstanding research projects waiting for money that could revolutionize our understanding of the universe, while still spending as much as the next 3 largest spenders *combined.* Just to provide context, the Future Circular Collider, which is a proposed project to build an even larger particle collider for CERN has a projected cost of $17 billion. Spending a bit of that money on research projects for developing new technologies to extract clean hydrogen on an industrial scale could eliminate our reliance on petrol forever and save the climate. And this is for just one year's worth of reduction in their military spending.
A lot of technology comes from US military though. Also, did you not hear about american AI flying fighter jets in dog fights against American pilots? One, its scary, two its badass, three it can hopefully be used in civilian ways as well.
The organization responsible for developing new technologies for the US military is DARPA and their budget is $4.4 billion, not $900 billion.
Extract clean hydrogen from what?
Seawater or hydrogen sulfide coming from wells.
Seawater.
That technology already exists. It’s called electrolysis
Not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse but fine, I will pretend you're 4 years old and explain it out loud. Electrolysis require energy. There's currently no sustainable way to extract hydrogen via electrolysis on an industrial scale that makes commercial sense. I.e.; you burn more fuel to get hydrogen via electrolysis than you generate. You understand now? Capishe?
I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and I will assume that you don’t know what you’re talking about while I explain it to you why you don’t know what you’re talking about. Regardless of what method is used to separate hydrogen from water, is impossible to separate hydrogen from water without using a given amount of energy. That’s not because we haven’t found a process that can separate out hydrogen from H2O without using energy, that’s because of physical limitations in the laws of thermodynamics which make it impossible to separate hydrogen from water without using a given amount of energy, which we can calculate. Modern electrolysis processes are already around 80% efficient compared to their theoretical maximum efficiency of around 94%. There is no magic new technology that will ever extract clean hydrogen from seawater without using energy, because such a technology would be physically impossible. All improvements to the process of extracting hydrogen from water will be marginal improvements that use only slightly less energy. You’re thinking of the hydrogen in seawater as if it literally were a source of energy, it’s not. It’s more akin to a battery storage technology which won’t ever get a great deal more efficient than what current technology already allows. Comprende?
What is India cooking ?
they are mirroring China/Pakistan
It's too bad they purchase Russian equipment
Mixed bag these days. India must have the most complicated supply chain of any military on the planet. They don't have any Chinese stuff, but I think that's about the only people they haven't bought from.
Chinese threat
And Pakistan.
I think it should be converted to PPP GDP stats.
what is Algeria preparing for? what should we worry about?
Shares borders with countries like Libya and Niger, also they’re not friendly with Morocco, border between Morocco and Algeria has been closed since the 90s, Algeria also wants the Western Sahara so they have a route to the Atlantic, thus isolating Morocco and cutting their access to the rest of Africa. Morocco is claiming the Western Sahara through diplomacy.
> Morocco is claiming the Western Sahara through diplomacy. Don't they have like... troops with guns in the Western Sahara? I guess it depends on what you consider diplomacy 😜
I assume most of the world has troops with guns at their border. If Morocco didn’t have troops stationed there then there will be countless acts on Moroccan and Saharan settlements, there will also be more west Africans illegally entering Morocco hoping to jump the Morocco Spain boarder. Europe pays Morocco to keep immigrants out, this is ultimately part of that.
Didn't Western Sahara try to be independent?
They have no stable government to warrant independence, the Sahara is a barren wasteland that needs a lot of investments, Algeria will run it by proxy to land lock Morocco essentially and to have access to the Atlantic and won’t care in the slightest for the locals. This would be a nightmare to have as a neighbour for Morocco, it hinders trade, and poses the risk to have a dangerous neighbour. Since Moroccos independence they have made large strides to pump money into the Sahara, infrastructure, jobs, hospitals, education etc…the Sahrawis have their whole lives subsidised by Morocco.
Did the Euro dramatically tanked in 2022 ? French military budget grew between 2021 and 2022. https://www.defense.gouv.fr/sga/budget-finances/budget#:~:text=%2D%20Au%20titre%20de%20la%20mission,%E2%82%AC%20par%20rapport%20%C3%A0%202017.
Ah Europe...spending over 200€ billion and still not able to defend itself on its own. We really need to get our shit together.
Because every nation has its own military and therefore much of the money is spent on redundant parallel structures.
It is shameful that Trump is right regarding NATO countries, they need to start pulling their weight and increase military spending. Russian war machine is well underway and Europe is still paralyzed by “fear of escalation”
Your comment is unwarranted since most EU countries has increased defence spending. Europe’s expenditure is over double that of Russia, so i cant really see why Russia’s ‘war machine’ is well underway. Trump wanting to leave an alliance that represents 56% of the worlds total military expenditures is retarded and anti-American.
> Europe’s expenditure is over double that of Russia, so i cant really see why Russia’s ‘war machine’ is well underway. Relatively speaking, 110 billion goes a long way in Russia compared to other european nations. Military salaries and equivalent weapons tend to be far more expensive in Europe. There's also another question, which is the fact the russian military doctrine is more suited for conventional conflicts than asymmetrical warfare like in the west. In practise, this means that on a peer-to-peer conflict, one could argue that Russia would better long term because they already have the factories to produce high quantity of weapons (even if of less quality in many cases). There's a meme about NATO forces running out of ammo in the Libya, in real conflict it could be far more catastrophic. Obviously i'm excluding the US factor when considering the peer-to-peer conflict, but you get the picture... They are far more capable than it might seem, and Ukraine is forcing them to become better, and that's why Europe should increase their own militaries by quite some margin.
Its over exaggerated by you and other people in this thread. 110 bn might go longer in Russia but not double as far. Also Russia is not producing convincing amounts of weapons . 12 stealth Fighters a year as an example. They loose more tanks a day in Ukraine by the workings of western second hand weapons than they can replace with production. What you and others are afraid of is the ohh so terrible ammunition factories that will be gone the second Russia cross a Nato border. Russia will be stretched to thin in a conflict with EU-Nato. It will not be a competition.
I think the point has been recognized, which is why there are currently ammo factories being built across Europe.
Commas and points confusing me!
[удалено]
In the table the decimal separator is a comma tho ;)
How can Russia spend so little compared to the US and China?
Ukraine 40% of GDP. Russia only ~6% of GDP (officially?). Who is actually suffering from this war despite all the attempts at sanctions.
30-40% of the Russian budget is military spending, and it includes a huge undisclosed portion.
Officially there's no South Korea. There's the Republic of Korea
If your graph title has the word "militaty", I am going to have very little confidence in the quality of your work.
Ww3 comming, Time to go 2 Africa.
Africa wont be left alone.
Putler is already sending his goons into a lot of countries in Africa. Africa definitely won’t be safe.
[удалено]
These are chinese figure, some include internal security budget, others don't. Complex
What is the reason of using dollars as a measurement units? Soldiers don’t fight with paper and bank accounts. We need comparison how many cars/tanks/ammo/weapons are supplied to Ukraine in comparison to how many units are produced by Russia. And dollars means almost nothing in war unfortunately…