Obiettivo di spesa del 5% della NATO: effetti (e costi)

I wish we’d ramp down our spending

I wish we could spend all this money on things like education or science. 

But now, due to literally couple of individuals whole world suffers. 

I don’t get it how few can have such a big impact on billions of people for generations.

Rookie numbers. Gotta pump those up!

As a Finn I welcome this even though Finland has never needed NATO or any part of it. Except on paper. Europe has needed an economic wake-up call since the cold war. Leeching of NATOs protection and cheap Russian oil and gas was really not it – as quite a few countries have learned.

There are the fools who think that ‘these funds should be spent in education’ or something similar. Countries do not work like that.

Like with everything Europe, some European countries will see this as an opportunity and some will see this as an obstacle. All these funds can be re-cycled back to the economy, especially now. Canada being part of SAFE and ReArm will certainly help.

This is an opportunity – not in war time economics – but boosting economy and circle everything back to economy. I can see the winners and losers already. It’s up to each European country to be the winner in this.

This 5% can be spent on infrastructure as well as software development at large. Taking away money from the budget just because is not the correct way of thought. Taking away this money to establish ways to make the economy and country more prosperous is the way to look at this. There will be winners and losers – which is why we have elections in Europe. Choose wisely.

What is important is that we spend as much as this “in-house”. We should not spend this on American companies if we can avoid it.

5% spending during peacetime is ridiculous. Even the US doesn’t spend that much. I imagine a huge portion of the 5% will be used for dual-use infrastructure like bridges and railways, and no country will actually hit that amount. 3% is a good target during peacetime, with a focus on R&D and defensive capabilities.

What does that mean? It either means nobody thinks an all-out war in the next 10-15 years can be avoided, or that everybody’s just stroking Trump’s ego but nobody will actually follow up on these promises.

The **UN FAO** estimated in recent years that ending world hunger would cost about **$330 billion over 10 years** — or roughly **$33 billion per year**.

The **World Bank** and **WHO/UNICEF** estimate it would cost around **$114 billion per year until 2030** to achieve **SDG 6** (clean water and sanitation for all), covering infrastructure, maintenance, and hygiene education.

The **Lancet Commission (2017)** and **WHO estimates** suggest that providing **essential health services** in low- and lower-middle-income countries would cost about **$58 per person per year**. For the roughly **4 billion people** in need: 4 billion × $58 = **$232 billion per year** This includes immunizations, maternal care, malaria prevention, and basic medicine.

It would cost **approximately $330–410 billion per year** to provide **basic food, clean water, and essential healthcare** to every person on Earth. This is a fraction of global wealth and technically achievable, but requires major coordination, political will, and efficient delivery systems.

# For Perspective:

* **Global military spending** in 2023: ~$2.4 **trillion**
* **Global GDP** (2024): ~$105 **trillion**
* This basic-needs package would be **~0.3–0.4% of global GDP**

So in the next 10 years the EU will be spending almost as much as the US has been spending for the last 20+ years.

Amazing.

Maybe in 60 years we won’t need the US to defend us anymore.

numbers like this are far more meaningful and commensurable across countries by dividing the expenditure by the median income in that country to see something more indicative of the amount of human effort being invested

And that’s why you have to wait 3 months for an ultrasound.

Now do it in purchasing power parity and you’ll find that Russia’s share is as big as Europe combined and that China’s is as big as USA’s.

It certainly looks dramatic.

But there’s a whole lot that doesn’t come through from this graphic representation. Personally I see the new baseline as long needed groundwork to get out of the dependence from the U.S. and become our own force based on actual democracy, actually working international law with real consequences for all, and evidence-based cooperation on international matters like health, climate, pollution, resource management and economy.

What this graphic does misrepresent though, is that the new baseline of 5% includes 1,5% that will be spent on things like infrastructure development and cybersecurity that will benefit civillian society just as much.

And the U.S. themselves will not spend 5% as far as I know. They will spend whatever they would spend regardless. It’s meant for the other half of NATO to catch up, and hopefully it will generate a healthy industry with European R&D and expanding factory lines/new industries.

Lastly, adjusted for PPP, non-U.S. NATO will exceed by quite a large margin what the U.S. has of military hardware and soldiers. Meaning the U.S. will of course inevitably lose the influence they now enjoy.

But, we’ll see how this goes. Needless to say, quite a few countries will never reach this goal. Maybe NATO will lose it’s purpose for anything besides a world war, and a new coalition will emerge in Europe consisting of those who sees the value of a formidable defense so we can avoid a war.