NATO secretary general says European countries have to do 'much, much more' to increase defense spending

[Vambram]

NATO secretary general says European countries have to do 'much, much more' to increase defense spending
President Donald Trump wants NATO members to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said European countries in the military alliance have agreed to step up their defense spending in the wake of President Donald Trump’s request that they increase the number to 5% of GDP.

"Right now, we are spending $700 billion more on the European side of NATO than before President Trump came into office. It is absolutely still not enough. We have to do much, much more," Rutte said Monday in an exclusive interview on "The Story."

"The U.S. is by far the most important ally within NATO, but the U.S. is absolutely right that it is only fair that on the European side of NATO, we ramp up spending because we need to do it for our own defense. But also, because it is fair to get this balance with what the U.S. is spending on defense."

NATO secretary general says European countries have to do 'much, much more' to increase defense spending

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte weighs in on talks to end Russia's war in Ukraine and the future of the military alliance on 'The Story.'

www.foxnews.com

 

[Nithavela]

Not even the USA is spending 5% of it's GDP on defense.

3 to 3.5 percent seems like a good target to me. That would put them in the same range as the USA currently is, and who knows how that will change once DOGE is done with the pentagon.

 

[mindlight]

NATO secretary general says European countries have to do 'much, much more' to increase defense spending
President Donald Trump wants NATO members to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said European countries in the military alliance have agreed to step up their defense spending in the wake of President Donald Trump’s request that they increase the number to 5% of GDP.

"Right now, we are spending $700 billion more on the European side of NATO than before President Trump came into office. It is absolutely still not enough. We have to do much, much more," Rutte said Monday in an exclusive interview on "The Story."

"The U.S. is by far the most important ally within NATO, but the U.S. is absolutely right that it is only fair that on the European side of NATO, we ramp up spending because we need to do it for our own defense. But also, because it is fair to get this balance with what the U.S. is spending on defense."

NATO secretary general says European countries have to do 'much, much more' to increase defense spending

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte weighs in on talks to end Russia's war in Ukraine and the future of the military alliance on 'The Story.'

www.foxnews.com

The 5% target is unnecessary and ad hoc. Also, Trump is showing a lack of integrity here as he is looking to cut US defense spending below 2%

Trump proposes nuclear deal with Russia and China to halve defense budgets

‘We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things,’ the US president said

www.theguardian.com

A consistent and persistent 2.5% in good times is a reasonable target with the flexibility to raise it in emergencies to wartime levels. The Germans for example have been using a special fund to boost their numbers but the current left-wing coalition bar sensible people like Scholz and Pistorius clearly have a deep aversion to all things military. The more regular defense budget is still struggling to rise despite widespread support for that because of the debt brake. It has been proposed to exempt defense spending from the constitutional brake clause because in emergencies you need to be able to boost it.

Following Trump's words on both sides of the Atlantic US military stocks have fallen and some European defense companies have seen big rises. For those who follow the money it seems that the US is planning military cutbacks while Europe is boosting its own expenditure.

 

[Nithavela]

The 5% target is unnecessary and ad hoc. Also, Trump is showing a lack of integrity here as he is looking to cut US defense spending below 2%

Trump proposes nuclear deal with Russia and China to halve defense budgets

‘We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things,’ the US president said

www.theguardian.com

A consistent and persistent 2.5% in good times is a reasonable target with the flexibility to raise it in emergencies to wartime levels. The Germans for example have been using a special fund to boost their numbers but the current left-wing coalition bar sensible people like Scholz and Pistorius clearly have a deep aversion to all things military. The more regular defense budget is still struggling to rise despite widespread support for that because of the debt brake. It has been proposed to exempt defense spending from the constitutional brake clause because in emergencies you need to be able to boost it.

Following Trump's words on both sides of the Atlantic US military stocks have fallen and some European defense companies have seen big rises. For those who follow the money it seems that the US is planning military cutbacks while Europe is boosting its own expenditure.

I don't think that's fair to the green party. If anything, Scholtz has been dragging his feet regarding military matters while the green party has been the driving force regarding ukraine support.

 

[Laodicean60]

It's time for the freeloading to stop. Trump wanted NATO to increase the defense budget during his first term but the liberal leaders are short-sighted because their focus is never Trump. Don't forget the EU energy woes that Trump warned about. Manufacturing is struggling because of high energy costs are the EU still able to manufacture weapons of war.

I don't blame Trump for wanting to leave NATO now even more because if friends are unwilling to help themselves why do I need to pay for your defense?

 

[Nithavela]

It's time for the freeloading to stop. Trump wanted NATO to increase the defense budget during his first term but the liberal leaders are short-sighted because their focus is never Trump. Don't forget the EU energy woes that Trump warned about. Manufacturing is struggling because of high energy costs are the EU still able to manufacture weapons of war.

I don't blame Trump for wanting to leave NATO now even more because if friends are unwilling to help themselves why do I need to pay for your defense?

Quick reminder that the USA was the only country that ever triggered article 5 of NATO.

 

[Laodicean60]

Quick reminder that the USA was the only country that ever triggered article 5 of NATO.

Yes, we will be the first to be taken out because without us NATO is nothing. Do you think we needed you guys in the Middle East or did we drag you along for cover for our hegemony?

 

[7thKeeper]

It's time for the freeloading to stop. Trump wanted NATO to increase the defense budget during his first term but the liberal leaders are short-sighted because their focus is never Trump. Don't forget the EU energy woes that Trump warned about. Manufacturing is struggling because of high energy costs are the EU still able to manufacture weapons of war.

I don't blame Trump for wanting to leave NATO now even more because if friends are unwilling to help themselves why do I need to pay for your defense?

Of all NATO members, the only ones of note (which I mean the bigger nations) to still miss the 2% limit are Spain and Italy, every other major power is above 2%. Poland and Estonia currently spend more than the USA. So exactly what freeloading are you talking about? And it's funny that you try to paint it as if it isn't just pure isolationism and ignorance driving Trumps view. Quite rich talking about friends when Trumps ignoring Ukraine in his "peace negotiations" and pressuring Zelenskyi to sign an agreement for the minerals in Ukraine without giving him time to read the deal properly and without any safety guarantees involved.
Though I would agree with expanding the European defense industry more and keeping up the spending, if not upping it some like posts above have mentioned. Patria has been eating well lately. Sucks what it'll possibly mean for US gdp though in the long term.

 

[Laodicean60]

Of all NATO members, the only ones of note (which I mean the bigger nations) to still miss the 2% limit are Spain and Italy, every other major power is above 2%. Poland and Estonia currently spend more than the USA.

It took a war for this to happen and sad that our cancel culture locked out brains to see the future. Trump warned NATO about defense spending (maybe Crimea brought enlightenment) and reliance on Russian energy. I see you are from Finland how long has your country been peaceful as a neutral country? Why do think Russia hasn't tried to take Finland or any other neutral country since WW2 do think Ukraine and Georgia are Russia's redline to our hegemony?

 

[Nithavela]

Yes, we will be the first to be taken out because without us NATO is nothing. Do you think we needed you guys in the Middle East or did we drag you along for cover for our hegemony?

I don't know. Why did you ask NATO to fight at your side in Afghanistan? Feeling lonely?

 

[mindlight]

I don't think that's fair to the green party. If anything, Scholtz has been dragging his feet regarding military matters while the green party has been the driving force regarding ukraine support.

You might have a better read on Scholz than I have. I thought he was simply hamstrung by his party, Lindner and the debt brake but was not stupid about the real need for higher defense spending. If the reluctance is coming from him then that is yet another reason why the SPD should not remain in charge.

You are right that the current Greens seem more gun-ho than their historical record would suggest. Maybe this is because they are feeling guilty about playing a significant role in creating the mess in the first place. I actually like Habeck he seems sane (not an obvious quality of most politicians). I would mix and match if it were up to me to build a team. Pistorius can stay at defense, Metz for Chancellor, Habeck on the environment, and Scholz would have been good back in Finance but I figure he will probably retire after the election. Lindner has been a disappointment and anyone left of the greens or in the AFD can take a hike. It is not obvious that the CDU would have enough votes to form a coalition with its partner of choice. Ideally, this would be the SPD but if both big parties are too small it may have to include the greens also.

Personally, with my British background, the only sane agenda is something like that offered by Bundnis Deutschland (tax cuts, small state, conservative values, business-friendly, not anti-EU, controlled migration ok) but none of the centrist(not completely mad or weird) parties are offering that and voting BD is a wasted vote. So big state, high bureaucracy and struggling economy it is - while also trying to raise defense spending to acceptable levels.

 

[mindlight]

Yes, we will be the first to be taken out because without us NATO is nothing. Do you think we needed you guys in the Middle East or did we drag you along for cover for our hegemony?

No, you do need allies if you want to maintain that hegemony. It is not just about legitimacy, but also force magnification, bases, intelligence and economic weight. Without Europe, America is already smaller than China economically. The Trump effect is an isolationist dream that the US can retreat into a North American bubble including Canada and Greenland and ignore the rest of us. It is already too late for that as your chip pipeline makes all too clear.

 

[Arcangl86]

One piece I see often left out of these discussion is that the 2% doesn't include the budget of the Defense Ministry. It also counts veterans' services and some forms of foreign aid.

 

[Nithavela]

You might have a better read on Scholz than I have. I thought he was simply hamstrung by his party, Lindner and the debt brake but was not stupid about the real need for higher defense spending. If the reluctance is coming from him then that is yet another reason why the SPD should not remain in charge.

You are right that the current Greens seem more gun-ho than their historical record would suggest. Maybe this is because they are feeling guilty about playing a significant role in creating the mess in the first place. I actually like Habeck he seems sane (not an obvious quality of most politicians). I would mix and match if it were up to me to build a team. Pistorius can stay at defense, Metz for Chancellor, Habeck on the environment, and Scholz would have been good back in Finance but I figure he will probably retire after the election. Lindner has been a disappointment and anyone left of the greens or in the AFD can take a hike. It is not obvious that the CDU would have enough votes to form a coalition with its partner of choice. Ideally, this would be the SPD but if both big parties are too small it may have to include the greens also.

Personally, with my British background, the only sane agenda is something like that offered by Bundnis Deutschland (tax cuts, small state, conservative values, business-friendly, not anti-EU, controlled migration ok) but none of the centrist(not completely mad or weird) parties are offering that and voting BD is a wasted vote. So big state, high bureaucracy and struggling economy it is - while also trying to raise defense spending to acceptable levels.

I never even heard of Bündnis Deutschland before today and don't think they are important enough to worry about one way or the other.

I am not a fan of Scholtz, mostly beause of his "forgetfulness" regarding his involvement in the Cum-Ex scandal. As far as I can tell he was also the driving force behind preventing Ukraine from getting Taurus missiles and always warning about escalation.

I also liked the performance of Baerbock as foreign minister.

 

[Laodicean60]

I don't know. Why did you ask NATO to fight at your side in Afghanistan? Feeling lonely?

I guess we didn't want to stand out as the lone bad guy. BTW what did we gain from all these years in Afghanistan besides further in debt and the loss of American lives?

No, you do need allies if you want to maintain that hegemony.

Maintaining hegemony is the reason for all conflicts in the world. I never understood why a country has to force a government on another who has a different culture.

Without Europe, America is already smaller than China economically.

Yep, because politicians had their heads in a box where the sun didn't shine. Also because of our addiction to cheap stuff, WE turned China into a superpower. I think we'll fare better economically than Europe because of cheap energy.

 

[Nithavela]

I guess we didn't want to stand out as the lone bad guy.

After the attacks of 11/9/2001, nobody thought the USA were the bad guys. In fact, never before or since has the USA enjoyed such solidarity and sympathy like in that time.

Most of that good will was squandered by the Iraq Invasion, which was largely justified with propaganda.

 

[Laodicean60]

After the attacks of 11/9/2001, nobody thought the USA were the bad guys. In fact, never before or since has the USA enjoyed such solidarity and sympathy like in that time.

Most of that good will was squandered by the Iraq Invasion, which was largely justified with propaganda.

It did bring us together. You are right about Afgan, I had the whole ME cluster in mind, and stupid (me) Bush and Iraq which has led to endless conflicts and aggravated people who don't think like us.

 

[Gene2memE]

It's time for the freeloading to stop. Trump wanted NATO to increase the defense budget during his first term but the liberal leaders are short-sighted because their focus is never Trump.

That's not what happened.

NATO partners committed in 2014 to increasing their defense budgets to an agreed upon 2% of GDP by 2024.

Trump arrived at the NATO meetings in Brussels and Warsaw, shouted a lot and put a heap of noses out of joint (to quote someone who was in the room in 2016, there was a lot of "inelegant toddler stomping"). All this played well with his political base at home, but accomplished very little.

The Trump administration's dithering around ITAR licenses actually slowed down European defense spending plans. It's hard to build up an industrial defense partnerships if one partner has potential veto rights on exports. See also European efforts on satellite communications.

Under Trump, there were very little additional defense spending commitments from NATO partners beyond what was already planned (the major exceptions were Canada, Poland and the Netherlands). There were zero spending commitments in the 2016 and 2018 NATO communiques - just NATO members doing what they'd already planned.

NATO states ramped up defense spending rapidly in 2023 and 2024 in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. European defense spending is now 50% higher than it was a decade ago.

 

[Laodicean60]

NATO partners committed in 2014 to increasing their defense budgets to an agreed upon 2% of GDP by 2024.

There is no excuse for freeloading. Even if 2024 was the target there is no excuse for not spending after Russia invaded by 2023 they all should have spent 2%.

BRUSSELS, July 7 (Reuters) - NATO allies have reached agreement to raise the alliance's target for military spending to at least 2% of national GDP, two diplomats told Reuters late on Friday.
The 31 allies agreed on "an enduring commitment to invest at least 2%" of their GDP into their militaries in the future, two diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity and confirming an earlier report by German news agency DPA.
Agreement on the new spending target was one of the outstanding issues ahead of a two-day NATO summit on Tuesday and Wednesday next week in Vilnius.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg intended to make NATO's current military spending target of 2% of national GDP a minimum requirement rather than a goal to aim for.
In 2023, even the old target will be met by only 11 of the 31 members of the alliance, according to NATO estimates. The goal was set in 2014, when NATO leaders agreed to increase spending towards 2% of their GDP on defence within a decade.

https://www.reuters.com/world/nato-allies-agree-spend-at-least-2-their-gdp-defence-diplomats-2023-07-07/

President Trump had to tell them in 2018 and Brussels again in 2023.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's quite possible that the 5% number is one he pulled out, ad hoc.

So naturally, all of the arguments from some will tend to drift away from the underlying sentiment of "the other countries need to step it up" which is perfectly valid, and will instead fixate on the arbitrary nature of the "5% part".


The reality is, the US has been compensating for other countries paying less on defense spending for quite some time (and that's not just isolated to NATO-related matters).

The entire world would come to a screeching halt in terms of maritime trade/shipping if the US pulled back the Navy tomorrow.

• Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS): The U.S. Navy conducts operations to ensure that vital sea lanes remain open, particularly in contested areas like the South China Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Strait of Hormuz.
• Presence in Strategic Chokepoints: U.S. naval forces operate in key maritime chokepoints, such as the Suez Canal, Strait of Malacca, and Bab el-Mandeb, deterring piracy and ensuring the free flow of trade.
• Counter-Piracy & Anti-Terrorism: The U.S. Navy leads efforts against piracy, particularly off the Horn of Africa (Somalia) and the Gulf of Guinea.
• Escort Missions & Conflict Deterrence: In times of heightened tensions, the U.S. Navy escorts commercial vessels, as seen during the Tanker Wars in the Persian Gulf.

What that translates to is, the US spends more on military and less on domestic social services, so all of the other countries can do the inverse, and then chastise the US for not providing said social services.

The US could reduce its own military spending by 30%, and then use the leftover cash to fund healthcare, education, etc... and the end result would be something that the rest of the world likely wouldn't be keen on.