La Polonia sostiene Donald Trump nell’aumentare la spesa della Nato al 5% del Pil
https://www.ft.com/content/afe229e2-8717-4380-a943-3f13995918c8
di RebelWithOddCauses
La Polonia sostiene Donald Trump nell’aumentare la spesa della Nato al 5% del Pil
https://www.ft.com/content/afe229e2-8717-4380-a943-3f13995918c8
di RebelWithOddCauses
32 commenti
“Small government” and “cutting government spending” except also pouring money into government contracts.
How do US citizens feel about increasing their military spending by 50%?
5% ? Thx no. We should make sure everyone gets to that 2%, maybe slowly increase towards 2,5 or 3%.
And where possible buy European, not US, South Korean or Israeli hardware.
And rather than stupidly spending more money we should also spend it more efficiently.
Can the USA even produce that much military equipement so that everyone can reach the 5% goal? Maybe if they just raise the price of everything by 300% we will reach our spending goals. Make 1 missile cost $US 100 millions and we’re all gucci.
Are they aware of just how much 5% of GDP is? For reference, Russia pays 6-10% of their GDP on their military currently and Russia in its current state is widely considered a war economy.
I agree with the sentiment for Europe, as we have catching up to do. However it should largely be spend on European arms, except for the cases where we have true capabilities lack (e.g. air refueling or massive helicopter drops).
Yeah, and buying everything from the US would make you dependent on them for the next few decades. Trump is actually smart when it comes to playing Europe and forcing them to buy things from the US.
Because it is to deal with Russia, Poland, no matter what government will pair up and support the devil, Jesus, Buddha and Santa if it makes others join in
To get 5% goal it “**will take another decade, but I think he should not be criticised for setting a really ambitious target because otherwise there will be some countries that will continue to debate whether more spending is really needed”**.
And lets put as much as possible of this money in development of European military industry.
As long as it is primarily sourced in Europe, it makes sense.
Before we talk about raising this target, we should have a discussion about how this will be financed. As of now there is a lot of talking about taking debts to achieve this goal. Which is not long term sustainable, especially if it turns out that the big war with Russia will never come.
Well, for starters the US defense spending is nowhere near 5%, so lead by example I guess ?
OK, just buy European weapons, not American
If the US seriously wants to take on China in their home turf (aka near Taiwan), they’d need 5%. They cannot design and build new warships fast enough, and even air power will slowly slide into China’s favor if production isn’t increased.
So it’s not completely unreasonable if that’s the goal.
If Europe wants to defend itself independently, then 5% figure makes sense, but we can’t. Europe is broke.
Doesn’t make sense to spend that much on the military, 2% of GDP is plenty as long as its spent in the right places. That money is better spent in infrastructure investments or reducing deficits
I’m all for it but we shouldn’t put the target up and then only buy from america, if we do raise the target then the weapons and arms should be our own, other arms exporters like South Korea.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t buy american stuff at all but not all of it should come from america.
Could start by actually spending 2%.
And how much of that gets spent with European defence contractors? I’d imagine Europe needs to up it’s game there too (i.e. reduce external reliance).
(It’s a subject I know little about but I’d imagine Trump is happy if Europe increases spending but expects a huge part to go to US companies)
Wenn wenigstens ein Krieg mit Russland dabei raus kommen würde. Ach moment, Russland hat uns ja schon mehrfach den Krieg erklärt und in den sozialen Netzwerken und mit Terroristen und Spionen und Sabotage in der Ostsee gedroht. Ach warte.
This is getting silly – next year they’ll be demanding 10%. A solid long-term 2% is ample, even in the face of Russian aggression. Make it 2.5% if you’re really eager. But what people forget is that this number is relative to GDP, not to government spending! 5% of GDP would mean 10 to 15% of all government spending for most Western governments, and even more if you only look at federal/central government spending.
That’s all money that isn’t being spent on infrastructure, healthcare, education, culture … We need to be able to defend ourselves, but we also need something worthwhile to defend, and with the state of many countries’ education or healthcare systems sinking everything into defence certainly isn’t a great idea.
No surprises here, since Poland is an expert in bootlicking the US. A big L and middle finger to the EU if they decide to side with the US on the Greenland matter.
A combined european military as it is now would stomp Russia.
We do not need more jets or cruise missiles. We need policies in place to counter russian and chinese efforts to undermine European democracy; as that is what has damaged europe the most.
And where does most of that military hardware come from? The US. This is not, and never has been, about defence.
We’ll do it but not because he says so
Thats more then even the US spends. And the US spends a shit ton. Its not a realistic number outside of a hot war situation.
Poland is going to be on for a sad surprise when Trump throws them to the wolves. I bet that as part of the deal with Putin US in the best case scenario pulls back all its troops from Poland. Worst case scenario, Poland and other Warsaw pact countries will not be protected by the US in case of Russian aggression.
5% is only possible for Germany if:
– EU allows us to increase debt above the 60% limit
– CDU, SPD, AfD, Greens all agree to remove the debt brake
– we stop EU funding
– we enforce the Treaty of Lisbon (by military force if necessary) to save on social spending
sounds good to me. We should do that.
NATO, or EuroNATO, is also [reportedly](https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-secretary-general-mark-rutte-cold-war-military-spending-defense-budgets-russia/) (supposedly leaked, after Sec-Gen Rutte’s urging of greater spending) looking at 3% by 2030.
They could set a target of 5% within a decade, as Poland says. That’s far off enough for everybody to say, “By 2035 yet? Sure”. But, they could aim for a near-term significant but more realistic and verifiable 3% by 2030 as a path to 5% by 2035.
Spending 3%-5% would also allow Europe to be that much stronger by itself and have much lesser need for America for security. Europe would no longer have to please the USA with defense contracts and should thus invest much more in the European defense industry.
I read once that in the event of war, NATO would even have trouble moving tanks around because the highways aren’t built the same among different member states. I’m not sure throwing more money at the issue is the best solution. Steps towards integration (e. g. using the same military vehicle models) would be so much more cost-effective.
Wtf does NATO protect right now? Western oligarchs?
It sure isn’t their average citizens.
I think Europe needs to be unified in this, but we can’t let all that money flow back to America purchasing their equipment.
It should also not all be gobbled up by France and Germany, if we need to spend more on this the equipment should be manufactured all over Europe.
He just wants to choke us, because we’ll end up buying more flying iPhones who need patches with 60% taxation or some other crap to drain our economy and increase our dependence. We’ll be better of investing in Rheinmetal, Saab, Dassault, Harrier, Eurofighter, Bea Systems, Fremm…we can still coöperate but we need to get out of the mandatory orders overseas because of crazy trumptaxes are always possible. Same as with Putin you don’t trade under threat.