Paesi in Europa per spese militari (% del PIL, 2023)
https://i.redd.it/vhod9azw34ld1.png
di Glavurdan
Paesi in Europa per spese militari (% del PIL, 2023)
https://i.redd.it/vhod9azw34ld1.png
di Glavurdan
24 commenti
[Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_Europe_by_military_expenditures)
Majority of these countries still expect the US to spend 2,9% of their gdkp on military and protect their asses. But ofc calling out the European countries not meeting the goal of 2% means you’re on Putins payroll 🤡
I wonder why Iceland’s expenditure is listed as “under 1%”, which kind of implies it is not strictly zero.
And here you can see the so called neutrality* of non NATO countries like Switzerland, Austria and Ireland.
*Neutrality meaning we save a lot of money while you do the defence for us
The transition from 4-6% to 30% is kinda funny and scary. Yeah, I live here.
Estonia will hit 4% in 2025 or 2026. I believe that Poland has reached 4% already though.
Old. Czechia is at 2% now.
There’s an actual new law in place saying the expenditure cannot fall below 2%.
It’s probably pretty easy for the UK, and France to mean NATOs recommended spending. Nuclear weapons, and aircraft carriers probably make up a large chunk of expenditure.
Slovakia, my homeland – finally not being last in something. Incredible.
There was only ONE thing that Trump was right about – Europe’s defense spendings. It just has to increase, there’s no coming back to 90s. And, by the way, it’s funny how countries neighboring Russia are aware of the fact and the more distant ones just don’t care, like Belarus and Russia are not their business. Hint: it is your business as well.
It is well seen that all these exercises in Belarus on the Ukrainian border are just propaganda. Minsk is not ready for war.
Sweden spends 2.2% (2024) according to how all other NATO members measures it and and 1.6-1.7% according to how Sweden used to measure it before joining. The NATO spending definition is broader and includes more “stuff”.
Russia also spends around 30% of GDP on military. Maybe even more, because another 30% is secret part of budget, for sure it is not fro pensions and teachers’ salaries.. And another 9% is on “national security and police”, which also can include some military expenses.
Definition of ‘Europe’ bit different than it is normally 🙂
I feel ashamed we aren’t fighting alongside Ukraine.
Every NATO member should spend at least 2%
Sweden technically hit 1.5% so it could be either Orange or Yellow
2024 forecast is set to hit 2.2%. Hopefully, there is a lot of money/resrouces reserved as military aid to Ukraine as well.
We, together with the support of the “[danskjävel](https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/30l5tp/danskj%C3%A4vel/#lightbox)”, are ramping up CV90 production as quickly as possible, and our military procurement department is investigating the possibility of setting up CV90 production/assembly in Ukraine.
PS. ❤️DK 😉
Sweden should be “defense is the responsibility of Finland”
You’re missing Guernsly, Jersey, Gibraltar, and the Isle of Man, who’d all have defence provided by the UK.
Also, Turkey, Cyprus, Khazakstan, Georgia*, Azerbaijan*, and Armenia* are geographically in Asia (*debatable).
Ireland. Tax dodging plus relying on others for defence. Especially the loathed Brits. Thanks.
The colors are swapped. Blue should mean good and red bad
What’s that green dot on the adriatic?
Kazakhstan is Europe now? Since when?
Even today, no one knows or can explain why 2%. It’s a magic number that comes out of some complex calculation that is not clear.
And in fact this criterion was born structurally as a tax. It has no relation to defensive ability. The problem is that in the past a good part of the weapons were made in the USA. So, in practice, it was as if the USA asked for a contribution based on the GDP to keep the US war industry alive and ready. It made sense and at the same time it was like paying protection money to the US. And it was a win/win. Now, things are different. Germany and Italy (France even before) began to produce more and more weapons at home, weapons that cost less than American ones and also generate a return on GDP. This means that in reality if Italy spent the same or more money on weapons and ammunition by buying them from the USA, it would reach 2%. But it would actually have fewer weapons and ammunition. Not only that, military spending does not only consider purchases but overall spending. Germany, for example, can bring spending to 2% just by raising salaries. The armed forces would be happier, but the same as yesterday.
This makes us understand the total nonsense behind the 2% expenditure, born as a tax, as a duty, but with no real connection to ensuring minimum standards of defense. There are countries that need more money and countries that need less money to ensure a certain security of their borders. The 2% is an imaginary criterion.