Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Funny thing is, the USA isn't "paying for everything".

The people who whine about NATO members "not paying enough" seem to think all the other NATO countries have got rid of their armies and are defended only by US troops permanently stationed there. That's not how it works: They all have their own defense forces. Trump was whining that those are not big enough (and he was probably even [at least mainly] right there), but that just means that if there is a war in any NATO country, it will only be able to do "too small a part" in its own defense, and the other ones (yes, given their size, mainly the USA) will have to help more than they otherwise would. But until that happens, this "missing money" doesn't actually come out of any US budget; it's just not being spent at all.

For once, not even "just another one of Trump's lies", but certainly a huge over-simplification by / for the more naïve of his followers.



view as:

From first principles:

Some sized and equipped military force is required for a credible NATO defense from Russia.

The origins of that force's components is a zero sum game. If they don't come from one country, they must come from another.

The US currently spends ~3.5% of GDP on its military. The EU (in total) spends ~1.6%. I believe the UK is at ~2.5%. The NATO target is 2% of GDP. See specifically, graphs 2-4: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pd...

If the US spent less, it's possible Europeans would not choose to make up the difference. But if they didn't, they'd certainly be less secure.

It's a complicated topic, but the idea that the US is paying for more European defense than Europeans is well-supported.


>> But until that happens, this "missing money" doesn't actually come out of any US budget; it's just not being spent at all.

(Fyi Not American.) That seems wrong, because America does already spend so much on their Military budget to have a 'preventative' presence plus standing force ready to respond. They spend each year keeping that force built, trained, operating etc .. regardless of if it's used.

That seems pretty obvious too, I don't know if your argument was made in good faith?


> "But until that happens, this "missing money" doesn't actually come out of any US budget; it's just not being spent at all."

That's like saying a 4WD SUV, which is much heavier because it can in theory go off road at any time, doesn't burn any extra fuel if you never take it off road. Maintaining the capability to send a huge expeditionary force to Europe at any time is mind-bendingly expensive.


Wasn't Trump specifically complaining about many NATO members not seriously working towards the 2% of their GDPs they were expected to spend on defense? Which was also in the news around February since Germany seriously committed to meeting that requirement in response to Ukraine, thus effectively saying that he was not all too unreasonable to demand that?

Yup. As I said:

>> Trump was whining that those are not big enough (and he was probably even [at least mainly] right there)


Legal | privacy