Record number of NATO allies to hit 2% defense spending goal

[trophy33]

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has announced that more NATO member states than originally expected were set to fulfill the 2% target of GDP defense spending this year.

Record number of NATO allies to hit 2% defense spending goal – DW – 06/19/2024

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has announced that more NATO member states than originally expected were set to fulfill the 2% target of GDP defense spending this year.

www.dw.com

 

[BCP1928]

Smart move. They know that if Trump gets in the US can no longer be relied upon.

 

[frienden thalord]

rather they might be preparing to build and to equip an army that will help to enforce sie agenda .
I would not trust in men if i were anyone . that do include the men of the left or the right . sie agenda
has them both under its wing now . they do its work . its humanity that will soon discover too little too late
That these elites WERE NEVER FOR US . and ps , TRUMP cannot save anyone either . HE is part helper in the agenda already
Sie agenda of the global elite .

 

[BCP1928]

rather they might be preparing to build and to equip an army that will help to enforce sie agenda .
I would not trust in men if i were anyone . that do include the men of the left or the right . sie agenda
has them both under its wing now . they do its work . its humanity that will soon discover too little too late
That these elites WERE NEVER FOR US . and ps , TRUMP cannot save anyone either . HE is part helper in the agenda already
Sie agenda of the global elite .

What in the world is the "SIE agenda?"

 

[frienden thalord]

What in the world is the "SIE agenda?"

OH , sorry , that is my german sounding typcent . as in THE ORDER . Sie order .
Here is it in full . Velcum to SIE ORDA . or welcome to the order . sie fourth reich is upon us all .

 

[Larniavc]

SIE agenda

Strategic Indoctrination Enforcement agenda.

 

[frienden thalord]

Typcent . invented by frienden to combine two words as one . example typing and accent .
My typcent . its meant to make a point that what hitler once did
THEY DOING RIGHT NOW , thus i kinda put a german sound to things . we got no idea what is going on do we my friends .
WE getting duped is what is going on and by both sides too . they all do the working of the agenda
in their own way and sell it to their own side in a way their side will buy the lie .

 

[frienden thalord]

Strategic Indoctrination Enforcement agenda.

now that was kinda funny my friend . but man it sure do make a good point dont it .

 

[frienden thalord]

I might have to use that my friend . thanks for the idea . Strategic Indoctrination Enforcement agenda .

 

[HTacianas]

Smart move. They know that if Trump gets in the US can no longer be relied upon.

It was Trump who forced them to do it.

 

[trophy33]

It was Trump who forced them to do it.

In a way, yes. From the article in the OP:

Former US President Donald Trump, who is hoping to return to the White House after the November elections, rattled the alliance in February saying that he would "encourage" Russia to attack members of NATO who had not met their financial commitments.

 

[HTacianas]

In a way, yes. From the article in the OP:

Former US President Donald Trump, who is hoping to return to the White House after the November elections, rattled the alliance in February saying that he would "encourage" Russia to attack members of NATO who had not met their financial commitments.

More on point, here is something from someone who obviously dislikes Trump:

During his four years in office, President Trump repeatedly called on NATO allies to increase their defense spending, and threatened to leave the alliance if the situation did not improve. This article examines how three long standing members – Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany – responded to the challenge of the Trump presidency. It will reveal that all three did increase spending, modestly in the cases of Canada and the United Kingdom, more substantively for Germany. While the Trump presidency is now over, his insults and threats have done lasting damage, and thus whether NATO survives is increasingly an open question.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01495933.2021.1912511

Note the funny, funny comment in bold. That didn't age well. But anyways, this is from the NATO Secretary General. Someone who knows:

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg credited former President Trump on Tuesday for the record number of NATO member countries meeting their contribution requirements.

...

"I worked with [Trump] over those four years. And the reality is that he had a very clear message on the need for European allies to spend more. And I agree with him," Stoltenberg said.

NATO chief credits Trump for record number of members meeting spending targets

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg touted a record number of member states meeting their funding requirements, crediting both the war in Ukraine and former President Trump.

www.foxnews.com

 

[trophy33]

More on point, here is something from someone who obviously dislikes Trump:

During his four years in office, President Trump repeatedly called on NATO allies to increase their defense spending, and threatened to leave the alliance if the situation did not improve. This article examines how three long standing members – Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany – responded to the challenge of the Trump presidency. It will reveal that all three did increase spending, modestly in the cases of Canada and the United Kingdom, more substantively for Germany. While the Trump presidency is now over, his insults and threats have done lasting damage, and thus whether NATO survives is increasingly an open question.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01495933.2021.1912511

Note the funny, funny comment in bold. That didn't age well. But anyways, this is from the NATO Secretary General. Someone who knows:

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg credited former President Trump on Tuesday for the record number of NATO member countries meeting their contribution requirements.

...

"I worked with [Trump] over those four years. And the reality is that he had a very clear message on the need for European allies to spend more. And I agree with him," Stoltenberg said.

NATO chief credits Trump for record number of members meeting spending targets

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg touted a record number of member states meeting their funding requirements, crediting both the war in Ukraine and former President Trump.

www.foxnews.com

There is also an unspoken incentive when the US wants other countries to increase their military spending - a big portion of the money will be spent on the US made equipment.

I think this economical side of things may be more important for the US than whether some individual EU country will be able to wage a full blown war, which is unrealistic anyway, for the most of the NATO members with their small armies.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Smart move. They know that if Trump gets in the US can no longer be relied upon.

Although I agree, I assume you mean "relied upon to pay their share along with the US share."

 

[BCP1928]

Although I agree, I assume you mean "relied upon to pay their share along with the US share."

It's not certain that we would stay in NATO if Trump takes office.

 

[HTacianas]

There is also an unspoken incentive when the US wants other countries to increase their military spending - a big portion of the money will be spent on the US made equipment.

I think this economical side of things may be more important for the US than whether some individual EU country will be able to wage a full blown war, which is unrealistic anyway, for the most of the NATO members with their small armies.

It is not a matter of the US wanting other countries to spend more on their military. All NATO members are required to spend two percent of their GDP on defense. Yet none of them ever have. The US is the only NATO member to have met that requirement of the NATO charter. Trump has been talking about that for decades. Long before he ever ran for President. It asks the question, "why is the US the only NATO member to ever have fulfilled its obligations under the NATO charter"? That leads to yet another question, "why is the US defending Europe at all"? Against who? Then consider that the European Union has a larger land mass than the US, a larger population than the US, and a larger GDP than the US. If the EU is that powerful why doesn't it defend itself?

 

[trophy33]

It is not a matter of the US wanting other countries to spend more on their military. All NATO members are required to spend two percent of their GDP on defense.

The 2% is a recommendation, a guideline, not a requirement.

Yet none of them ever have. The US is the only NATO member to have met that requirement of the NATO charter.

According to the OP article - 24 countries are in or above 2% and two countries are even spending a higher percentage of GDP than the USA.

"why is the US the only NATO member to ever have fulfilled its obligations under the NATO charter"

1. The military spending create a significant part of the US economy, while in other countries military is mostly just a necessity similar to police or firefighters, not a drive for economy.

2. The US Military and the US military industry is one of the largest US employer

3. The US wants to have basis all over the world, to have a global reach and to be several steps ahead of any other country - thats why the US military spending is far above any other country ($820B, the second China spends "only" $300B, Russia spends about $100B).

Many other NATO countries have no such goals or priorities. However, the EU military spending together makes for about $300B, which would make it to be the second or the third in the world, depending on yearly fluctuations.

 

[Marvelloustime]

OH , sorry , that is my german sounding typcent . as in THE ORDER . Sie order .
Here is it in full . Velcum to SIE ORDA . or welcome to the order . sie fourth reich is upon us all .

Willkommen auf der Agenda.

 

[Richard T]

It seems fair to say that Trump has done quite a bit for NATO. Thank God he prepared them more. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_170796.htm

 

[Gene2memE]

It was Trump who forced them to do it.

Tosh. Complete, total and utter rubbish.

NATO spending started going up in 2014, after the Obama Administration used a carrot and stick approach during 2012-13 to get European allies to increase defense investment and the Putin invaded Crimea. Specifically, NATO's 2014 Wales summit saw members formally commit to the 2% spending target (to get there within a decade). Previously it had only been a guideline.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf

The Obama administration got NATO to commit to that by good old fashioned diplomacy. Mostly by making changes to the Arms Export Control Act - which made it easier for some US allies to get US weapons and also made it easier for European arms producers to export weapons that contained some US content (particularly software).

https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/pdfs/1319-ecr-brochure-1/file

The Trump Administration very nearly undid the good work of the preceding administration. None of the NATO declarations during Trump's tenure contain a word about spending (the closest they got was an agreement to submit national action plans).

The administration's general attitude to NATO, decision to reorient US defense exports away from traditional allies and towards budding dictatorships and Donald Trump's "inelegant toddler stomping" and interpersonal squabbles at the 2017 & 2018 meetings (as one senior European aerospace executive put it) gave everyone serious pause and put momentum into the Europeans looking at NATO alternatives.

Merkel in 2017 was reported to have said that "we Europeans will have to take our fate into our own hands". It got so bad that by 2019, the Europeans were starting to activate multi-national divisions as part of interoperability improvements.

For all Trump's bleating about NATO spending, everything that happened on his watch was because of things totally out of his control or decided before he was elected.