The 2% myth

[Vergennes]

This is the latest fashionable refrain. Defense spending must increase to at least 2% of the GDP.

This target was set by the Atlantic Alliance and regularly reminded at every NATO summits. (Wales in September 2014,Warsaw in July 2016) James Mattis the Secretary of State for Defense reminded this target when he came to NATO : The American taxpayers should not pay for the European taxpayer.... every country must make immediate and regular progress to reach this goal.

A reality or an illusion

2% is a mythical number.... it is a bit to defense the 3% deficit target of the European economic stability pact. A crest line,but a certain illusion. It is the pledge,according to its promoters,of an effective defense. We can doubt it. The increase of defense spendings is neither a guarantee of quality,nor efficiency nor will of commitment. The recent years in the European history proved it. And it can be seen again today by carrying out a few comparative tests.

Effective at 1% and ineffective at 2%?

The spending rate doesn't equal to military efficiency. Greece spends about 2,38% of its GDP on defense,while at the end of the scale,there's Luxembourg which spends 0,44% of its GDP on defense. One cannot say that the first one is really engaged on the externat forefront..... Poland spends 2% of its GDP on defense,while France spends 1,78%. In the light of the European security and international threats,the Polish defense has yet to demonstrate a real commitment compared to the French army. One can also look at Bulgaria or Portugal,which spend 1,35% of their GDP on defense,while Denmark only 1,17%. Again,military efficiency is likely reversed.

A very partial figure

This figure of 2% is therefore far from being a panacea. Because it is only a percentage and has a very limited value. One has also to look at the ratio of investments on equipments,personnels,R&D,commitment to external operations.... and the reality on the ground like the political will. This is even more difficult to quantify and makes it necessary to say certain truth. This figure also depends on volume and economic growth. For exemple,Germany increasing its defense spending to 2% of the GDP would significate a much greater commitments and would give Berlin a dominant role in the European military commitment in the Alliance,in absolute terms.

The Europeans in search of efficiency

To be more effective,the European states need above all to better coordinate in their defense investments. Some persistent gaps (helicopters,intelligence,technical and geospatial) are still not fully met. Everyone is already thinking of buying equipments,all of them silimar (tanks,armored vehicles,fighter planes),which are probably useful but which no longer have the monopoly on the field,the robots and drones making their appearance on the field.


Few ambitions for the futur

The European defense budgets are still struck by a very small share devoted to R&D. This prevent any projection towards the future. Knowing that an equipment purchased today could be usable for at least 20 years (or even 30,40 or 50),we thus have the value of possible failures. While the lack of coordination between the various countries,the dispersion of armies,the fragmentation of the European indurstry and the lack of will to develop it,remain principles inscribed on the marble,thus making it a double weakness in the European budgets : Small in volume and uncoordinated.

Without resolving these points,the respect of the 2% target appears to be like to fill a pierced basket.... or is just good to allow the US military industrials to sell their surplus on the old continent.

Who's going to benefit from this ?

The rerain,repeated every months by the various leaders of the Alliance and the americans is certainly commendable,to compel a necessary and additional effort on defense,but is also has an underlying objective. Spending more and very quickly = Buying what is available on the market,with a good quality/price value,combat proven,tested on the field,guaranteed and above all.... compatible with others = Buying US. CQFD,America first.... or as the MEP Arnaud Danjean explains : "If what we are asked is to sign more contracts with the US military industry,better to say it frankly".

https://www.bruxelles2.eu/2017/02/16/le-mythe-des-2/

The article is written in French,but tried to translate it in English from French as best as I could with the help of google translator. I am sorry if some parts might seem incomprehensible.

Thoughts ? @Louiq XIV @Taygibay @Providence @Kaptaan @waz @Blue Marlin @Zibago @mike2000 is back @vostok @Nilgiri

 

[flamer84]

Poland is efficient for its own needs,that means defending Poland,not overseas adventures

 

[vostok]

If Europe is to spend 2% on defense - it would be an amount of money comparable to the US military budget. But the US has wars around the world, hundreds of military bases around the world, the giant fleet, nuclear triad and master of the world ambitions.
And Europe has only 1 real enemy - the uncontrolled migration and terrorism, wich came with this migration.
America simply wants Europe to sponsore its hegemon ambitions.

 

[VCheng]

If Europe is to spend 2% on defense - it would be an amount of money comparable to the US military budget. But the US has wars around the world, hundreds of military bases around the world, the giant fleet, nuclear triad and master of the world ambitions.
And Europe has only 1 real enemy - the uncontrolled migration and terrorism, wich came with this migration.
America simply wants Europe to sponsore its hegemon ambitions.

If the EU has only one real enemy, then obviously it does not need to be under NATO's umbrella for protection. May be it is time for the EU to consider leaving NATO?

 

[vostok]

If the EU has only one real enemy, then obviously it does not need to be under NATO's umbrella for protection. May be it is time for the EU to consider leaving NATO?

Yes. It is time since 1991.

 

[VCheng]

Yes. It is time since 1991.

1991 was more than a quarter century ago. Obviously, the EU should have moved in this direction long ago. What seems to be causing the delay, in your view? NATO was the counter to the Warsaw Pact and should have died when the Cold War ended. Why did it survive to date?

(2% of $17T is still only a little more than half of the US defense budget.)

 

[vostok]

1991 was more than a quarter century ago. Obviously, the EU should have moved in this direction long ago. What seems to be causing the delay, in your view? NATO was the counter to the Warsaw Pact and should have died when the Cold War ended. Why did it survive to date?

(2% of $17T is still only a little more than half of the US defense budget.)

NATO is a tool of America's control over Europe. It will exist as long as it is necessary for America. And Europeans will pay for "protection" as much as America say.
340 billion is a huge sum, just gigantic amount of money. And EU countries have only few overseas bases, almost no nuclear forces, only one aircraft carrier - it will be enough to protect Europe from attack of the whole world combine.

 

[VCheng]

NATO is a tool of America's control over Europe. It will exist as long as it is necessary for America. And Europeans will pay for "protection" as much as America say.
340 billion is a huge sum, just gigantic amount of money. And EU countries have only few overseas bases, almost no nuclear forces, only one aircraft carrier - it will be enough to protect Europe from attack of the whole world combine.

It will be interesting to see how EU responds to this changed tactic by the present US administration over NATO funding.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

If the EU has only one real enemy, then obviously it does not need to be under NATO's umbrella for protection. May be it is time for the EU to consider leaving NATO?

EU is not a member of NATO.
Individual countries are.

 

[VCheng]

EU is not a member of NATO.
Individual countries are.

My point was to refer to the European members of NATO as a whole.

 

[Taygibay]

James Mattis the Secretary of State for France

If you're looking for erratums Vaugennes mon gars, that one made me tick^!

But to answer this interesting piece, I wonder : if all EU countries bought
Euro mil products whenever possible, wouldn't just that and taxes recoup
the half percent lacking here and there? Maybe Pic would have an idea?

Good day mec and all, Tay.

 

[Vergennes]

If you're looking for erratums Vaugennes mon gars, that one made me tick^!

Lol.
Corrected.

 

[Louiq XIV]

Thoughts ?

I fully agree with this article this 2% rule is stupid. This is not a solid metric to use because you cannot see this only from a financial point of view. You can't say "man my army is stronger because we spend 3% and your are weaker because you only spend 2%". With that rule you don't measure the efficiency of your spending among many other things.

And Europe has only 1 real enemy - the uncontrolled migration and terrorism, wich came with this migration.
America simply wants Europe to sponsore its hegemon ambitions.

Agreed 100%

 

[Jaanbaz]

And Europe has only 1 real enemy - the uncontrolled migration and terrorism, wich came with this migration.
America simply wants Europe to sponsore its hegemon ambitions.

Migrant problem can be sorted out if there is will amongst the political elite of Europe, they would have no choice eventually they will have to listen to their people but Russia is and will remain the real danger for Europe. Trump is basically giving Putin free hand to invade Eastern Europe Just give it 5-10 years you'll see Russian tanks in Moldova.

 

[Penguin]

This suggests the US is carrying 'all'. Then again, of course US budget is far greater then all others, not in the last place because most of all others do not have global interests to protect ..... (i.e. US defence spending serves self-interest too, and that self-interest may be far larger, global than for most, hence more expensive)

Reality is that NON-US NATO spending has increased steadily mostly 1950-2011. Whereas US NATO spending has been more eratic. As a result, we see below for TOTAL NATO spending a peak for Korean war (early 1950s), Vietnam war (late 1960s), the Reagan years (1980-1989) and post-911 increase (GW Bush). Dips 1970s (end of Vietnam), post 1992 (end of Soviet Union, Clinton years > defence draw down). Those are US (defence) policy related, not European (defence) policy. [edit: granted, the European (defence) policy also reflects the end of the Soviet Union, immediately post 1992]

Still, if a country has agreed to spend 2% of GPD in treaty, then it should. Question here is whether 2% GPD is target to strive for or hard rule that must be followed.

NATO's official guidelines say member states should spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense.

Guideline = information intended to advise people on how something should be done or what something should be
Rule = an accepted principle or instruction that states the way things are or should be done, and tells you what you are allowed or are not allowed to do

Put differently

• Rules are commands that are binding on those subject to them, e.g., "no smoking is allowed in this building." In other words, rules must be followed, and there will be a negative consequence associated with noncompliance.
• Guidelines are recommended best practices that aim to set standards in the future, e.g., "employees are encouraged to keep their offices clean."

I think this should be kept in mind.