Making NATO pay it's fair share

[Arcangl86]

So I've been seeing for a while that Trump has gotten/will get other NATO nations to pay their fair share. What exactly are they supposed to be paying into? There is a small common fund that is paid for by each member nation in proportion to their GNI. But that formula is agreed to by NATO as a whole and I've never heard any indication of any country not meeting that goal. The 2% target of GDP on military budgets is a) voluntary and b) doesn't directly support NATO anyway. So can somebody explain exactly what "paying their fair share" means in this case?

 

[Laodicean60]

The 2% target of GDP on military budgets is a) voluntary and b) doesn't directly support NATO anyway. So can somebody explain exactly what "paying their fair share" means in this case?

Here is a little info about this NATO Member countrie spending on defense.

"A record number of Nato nations have met or exceed the alliance's spending target, but other members are still falling short.
Out of the 31 Nato members, 23 are expected to meet Nato's guideline of spending 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defence.
This is a huge increase from 2014, when only three Nato allies hit the spending target." (imagine that, it took a war to wake them up to what Trump was saying)

I got to hand it to Poland

Which countries in the Nato alliance are paying their fair share on defence?

The alliance expects each member nation to spend at least 2% of its gross domestic product on defence, but plenty are falling short.

www.forcesnews.com

 

[Arcangl86]

Here is a little info about this NATO Member countrie spending on defense.

"A record number of Nato nations have met or exceed the alliance's spending target, but other members are still falling short.
Out of the 31 Nato members, 23 are expected to meet Nato's guideline of spending 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defence.
This is a huge increase from 2014, when only three Nato allies hit the spending target." (imagine that, it took a war to wake them up to what Trump was saying)

I got to hand it to Poland
View attachment 356956

Which countries in the Nato alliance are paying their fair share on defence?

The alliance expects each member nation to spend at least 2% of its gross domestic product on defence, but plenty are falling short.

www.forcesnews.com

Ok? That doesn't answer the question of what "paying their fair share means". If those countries all slashed their defense spending in half or even eliminated it completely, it would have effect on the amount that the US spends or is expected to spend on NATO.

 

[Laodicean60]

That doesn't answer the question of what "paying their fair share means"

On that chart, it says NATO guideline so I imagine the fair share would be when you touch the green line. I didn't understand your "if" statement.

 

[Arcangl86]

On that chart, it says NATO guideline so I imagine the fair share would be when you touch the green line. I didn't understand your "if" statement.

The 2% of GDP on military spending is a guideline that the leaders of NATO had voluntarily agreed to meet by this year. So even if it had been mandatory, the fact that most nations hadn't reached it yet wouldn't have been against the agreement. However, the important piece is that it is not mandatory. In addition other nations not meeting it doesn't impose any burden on the US or other nations that do. Each nation does have a certain amount they need to pay into NATO each year, which is dependent on GNI and the amount of the GDP spent on the military budget. So regardless of what other nations spend on their military budget, it wouldn't affect the amount of money needed to support the core institutions of NATO or impose an additional burden on those nations who are already at or exceeding the GDP target.

 

[Laodicean60]

The 2% of GDP on military spending is a guideline that the leaders of NATO had voluntarily agreed to meet by this year. So even if it had been mandatory, the fact that most nations hadn't reached it yet wouldn't have been against the agreement. However, the important piece is that it is not mandatory.

Not mandatory but it's common sense. I would want my NATO country prepared to defend itself without heavy reliance on another country. Especially with the mantra Russia Russia Russia for the last 80 years. If Russia is the existential threat that we've always heard these countries These days an EMP will send us to the caveman days and I don't think I'd want to live without my smartphone.

In addition other nations not meeting it doesn't impose any burden on the US

You don't know this because we've been doing it forever we've never seen it the other way. But it makes sense to me that if the UK Germany France had bigger navies patrolling the world ours needn't be so big.