Nato members increase defence spending by $100 Billion'

link

In conciliatory comments apparently designed to smooth over repeated public criticism of other alliance members by the US leader, Mr Stoltenberg said member states had agreed to add $100 billion to defence budgets over the next two years.

Say what you will about Trump, he got Europe to Pony up 100 Billion in extra spending for Defense in just 2 years.

U.S. Presidents had been asking for that for years, trying quiet diplomacy, and not succeeding. Trump gets it done with one Meeting and a dressing down of allies in public.

Maybe Trump's approach was the right way to get it done, sure looks that way.

a reply to: pavil

That is really good in one respect....but I can't help but think that the US bankrolling of defense for NATO has been used to influence EU policy? A strong Europe would not take as much ummmm....direction.

I think it was more of a matter that Europe surely didn't mind being protected by Pax Americana. That allowed them to use far less Euros for defense and plow it into other social and economic plans. They would have kept dragging their feet if they could.

By my calculation, it will take a bit more than $100 billion for certain EU countries to get up to the 2% of GDP - the agreed defence expenditure threshold. According the the NATO website Latvia, Estonia, Greece, the UK and the US are the only countries who actually abide by the 2% agreement. Germany alone needs to invest another $40-50 billion.

NATO

a reply to: paraphi

Absolutely correct but then we can't blame Germany for being so far behind on it's spending commitments for NATO when we have spent nearly 70 years discouraging Germany military build up.

You can't tell them not to increase their military and then tell them off for not spending enough on it!

a reply to: pavil

I'll believe it when I see it.

NATO are a bunch of punk beeches who haven't done their part since I can remember.

We are talking about 29 countries and some of them were part of the “always needing ex-eastern bloc” countries, and 100 billion?? Perhaps they have created a “cheap’n cheerful marked stores” for the NATO “used weapons”?

100 billion is just laughable....

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: paraphi

Absolutely correct but then we can't blame Germany for being so far behind on it's spending

You can't tell them not to increase their military and then tell them off for not spending enough on it!

Sure you can, Trump just did.

I'm sure that Putin will be delighted to hear of NATO's $100billion investment and use it as a means to spend a bit more for his military over in the east, particularly around Crimea and the Black Sea.

I hope NATO's investment is to improve the outdated equipment and vehicles for it's soldiers rather than making direct threats like pointing more missiles at Russia,
or China.

a reply to: pavil

all this defense is a bunch of # , a total waste of money !

the military the navy , all just projection of power for ego freaks who run government !

waste of tax payers money

we spend enough on arms and ordnance globally to end world poverty and hunger, and we could easily solve our problems if we spent that money on life rather than death!
or MAD

a reply to: bob77

looks like your avatar

we have 4.1 million children living in poverty in the UK since 2018 , the UK government should hang its head in shame !

spending an extra 100 billion on weapons that will never be used !

a reply to: sapien82

Said every country who has ever been invaded. Or not.

originally posted by: Flavian
Absolutely correct but then we can't blame Germany for being so far behind on it's spending commitments for NATO when we have spent nearly 70 years discouraging Germany military build up.

Yes you can. Germany agreed to maintain their defence spending, but have not. The entire German military is underinvested and not working. The point of NATO is to be able to defend, yet if there was trouble many NATO countries would be incapable of that act. The worst offenders are at the heart of Europe - Luxembourg and Belgium - two countries that have grown rich by leeching off everyone else.

If countries in NATO don't want to invest in their military then they should leave the military alliance.

originally posted by: sapien82
we have 4.1 million children living in poverty in the UK since 2018 , the UK government should hang its head in shame !

spending an extra 100 billion on weapons that will never be used !

Poverty?! By what definition? I'm living on ESA due an accident and my twin boys are clothed and well fed, the rent is paid by LHA, no council tax. Poverty is a word as abused as racist these days, I think of poverty as street kids in 3rd world nations, not fat kids on a council estate in England.

They should spend more for their defense.

One thing is true: there will be more wars.



As it has come up in a few comments, expanding social welfare programs just creates more social welfare that a taxpayer has to cover. Death by a million paper cuts.

a reply to: sapien82

Poverty is 15k a year or less. Most of Africa lives off a buck a day. So there is poor ...and impoverished.

a reply to: SarahConnor



I didnt write the report ,anyway here is where I got the figures , porbably at the request of government

Child poverty facts and figures

a reply to: lakenheath24

who out of the NATO countries has been invaded since it was formed ?

Defense takes place in your own half right !