International [NATO News] What Sweden brings to NATO as its Newest Member

[irish_thug]

Why? What does being part of NATO do for us exactly? Are we at risk of invasion or attack.... no. We only spend to be able to come to the aid of other countries that are.

Coming to the aid of countries in need is the a big part of being Canadian.

 

[irish_thug]

Yep. And it's really fun when Canadian members of this forum lecture us on what we should learn from their govt

Not this Canadian.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

Coming to the aid of countries in need is the a big part of being Canadian.

That's fine but we should not allow people who are in need of that defense dictate what we spend when the majority of them don't spend their share anyways.

 

[Orgasmo]

Good the get the fuck out then.

I'd gladly do it. Fuck your Murican dinosaur empire. Spend yourselves into bankruptcy.

 

[Arkain2K]

I am German and I totally agree with your sentiment. European nations need to become sufficient for defense. As it is now, not only are we dependent for defense but we also cannot be offensively active, like we should be in north africa for example.

The problem however is, that our politicians are kleptocrats. It doesnt even matter how much we spend, if we spent 100% of GDP we still wouldnt have a well equiped force.

Just check out all the recent scandals in the German armed forces

What are their issues/scandals ?

G36 assault rifles that can't shoot straight in hot weather, only 29 out of 93 commissioned jet fighters are actually combat-ready, among other things.

The Bundeswehr is suffering the same agonizing death as the British Royal Navy.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ry-called-overstretched-underfunded/79363208/

https://www.dw.com/en/less-than-half-of-german-air-force-fleet-ready-for-deployment/a-18889822

This crap is happening so often, there's an on-going joke among German posters in this forum that the main objective for the American forces stationed in Germany isn't to protect Berlin from Moscow, but actually to deter Poland from ever getting the idea of sending in their 1,000+ battle tanks (many of which are Lepards bought from Germany and constantly being upgraded to the latest specs) to demand war reparation from Merkel.

It's only partially a joke, anyway.

 

[Arkain2K]

MoD accused of using ‘creative accounting’ to meet NATO commitment on defence spending
By Oliver Wright | April 20, 2016

Ministers have only been able to meet their Nato commitment to spend two per cent of GDP on defence by “creative accounting”, a committee of MPs will reveal.

The Commons Defence Committee said the inclusion of items such as more than £1 billion of pension payments was the only means by which the Government was able to meet Chancellor George Osborne’s pledge to abide by the target announced in last year's summer Budget.

The Committee said ministers also had to include measures such as intelligence-gathering - which were not previously counted as defence spending - in order to make the figures add up.
While the changes were in line with Nato guidelines, the Committee warned that this “redefinition” to some extent undermined the Government's claims that the 2 per cent figure represented a significant increase in defence spending.

“We note that the Nato minimum would not have been fulfilled if UK accounting practices had not been modified, albeit in ways permitted by Nato guidelines,” it said.

“The only way that the Ministry of Defence can refute claims of ‘creative accounting’ is to outline, clearly and unambiguously, what the new inclusions are, how much they constitute, and from which department each was previously funded.”

The Committee also called on ministers to explain how they would continue to meet the 2 per cent target for the rest of the parliament given the pressures from pay and fact that this year's total included a number of one-off items which would not be repeated in future years.

It warned that while the 2 per cent figure was valuable as a “political statement” of the UK's commitment to defence, it did not guarantee that the country would have the resources it needed to protect itself from the various threats to British and Nato security.

“We remain to be convinced that the current financial settlement is sufficient to rectify the decline of defence as a national priority,” it said.

“The Government must be clear that 2 per cent is a minimum - not a target - and be prepared to increase defence expenditure further in order to reflect the increasing threats faced by both the UK and our allies.”

The Committee chairman, Julian Lewis, said: “It's good news that we have managed to achieve the per cent promise for defence spending but if the MoD has only achieved this by including things like war pensions or intelligence-gathering which previously came under other budgets, you wonder what effective, battle-winning spending increases have actually been made.

“The MoD have shed insufficient light on this confusion.”

But an MoD spokesman said the report confirmed that all UK spending on defence - including intelligence, cyber and war pensions - fell within the Nato guidelines.

“When defence spending will increase by £5 billion over this parliament, it is nonsense to suggest there is no new funding,” the spokesman said.

“Our plans will deliver more ships, more planes, more troops at readiness, better equipment for special forces, and more on cyber to help keep Britain safe.”

But the shadow Defence Secretary, Emily Thornberry, said it was increasingly clear that the 2 per cent commitment is being delivered not through increases in frontline defence spending but by “fiddling the books”.

“Time and again on defence, the Tories are shown to be all rhetoric and no reality, and it is our armed forces who are paying the price,” she said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-commitment-on-defence-spending-a6993526.html

 

[EvilWasLittle]

Fuck Nato.

 

[xcvbn]

Why are Greece spending so much? Historic fear of the turks and nationalistic nature? Turkey's not gonna attack Greece, nor anyone else.

Except the current attacks on Syrians, their own Kurdish, and Iraqi Kurds. And a terrorist here and there.

 

[Pwent]

we have been subsidizing european military for decades

they dont bother to have big military because the threat of US intervention is enough to keep them safe. nobody will attack them knowing that the US will come in and rescue them. then i have to listen to europeans ignorantly post on forums saying that the US spends too much on military, because their country doesnt have much military and theyre fine!

we subsidize their healthcare also. when a pharmaceutical passes, the manufacturer makes americans pay more to cover their R&D while europeans get it almost at cost. then they dont understand why we cant afford universal healthcare like their country

 

[JDragon]

Why are Greece spending so much? Historic fear of the turks and nationalistic nature? Turkey's not gonna attack Greece, nor anyone else.

I would assume without having checked that Greece's absolute numbers have remained stable while their economy tanked and GDP went down. Not sure if they should be praised for that then

 

[Fox by the Sea]

we have been subsidizing european military for decades

they dont bother to have big military because the threat of US intervention is enough to keep them safe. nobody will attack them knowing that the US will come in and rescue them. then i have to listen to europeans ignorantly post on forums saying that the US spends too much on military, because their country doesnt have much military and theyre fine!

we subsidize their healthcare also. when a pharmaceutical passes, the manufacturer makes americans pay more to cover their R&D while europeans get it almost at cost. then they dont understand why we cant afford universal healthcare like their country

don't hate us cause you ain't us.

 

[Arkain2K]

Reality check: Donald Trump says NATO members need to pay more. What is Canada paying?
By Rebecca Joseph
January 16, 2017

When it comes to Canada’s (and other members’) NATO contribution, Donald Trump may actually be right.

Once again, Trump has attacked members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, saying they aren’t “paying their fair share.”

In an interview on Sunday night (only five days from his inauguration), the Republican President-elect called NATO “obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror.”

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, speaking ahead of an EU foreign ministers’ meeting, said Trump’s view on NATO and his criticism of member states has “caused astonishment.”

Are his remarks really astonishing? Or should Canada, and other NATO members be coughing up more dough?

While 2015 data shows that the United States pays significantly more than other countries, there’s a reason for that.

According to the NATO website, funding is based on “an agreed cost-share formula, based on Gross National Income, which represents a small percentage of each member’s defence budget.”

That means each member country’s contribution is based on their Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

NATO’s goal is for each member to contribute about two per cent of their GDP to defence spending.

Data for 2016 isn’t publicly available yet, but 2015 numbers show that the United States is over the suggested goal.

Out of 27 member countries (there was no data available for the 28th country, Iceland) only five met or exceed the two per cent goal: the U.K. (2.07%), Poland (2.18%), Estonia (2.04%), Greece (2.46%) and the U.S. (3.62%).

The U.S. — with the biggest GDP in the world — contributed around US$650 billion to NATO’s budget in 2015.

By comparison, the U.K.’s 2.07 per cent contribution of its GDP, amounts to a NATO commitment of US$60 billion.

All in all, the U.S. contributed more than double what all the other members kicked in combined.

The other countries — Canada included — contribute less. Canada spent about one per cent of its GDP on defence, half of the suggested target, which amounted to around US$15 billion in 2015, according to NATO.

Only seven countries are behind Canada in reaching their goal.

U.S. President Barack Obama encouraged Canada to up its game during a speech to the House of Commons in November saying, “The world needs more Canada, NATO needs more Canada.”

But Canada’s top soldier, Gen. Jonathan Vance, says measuring Canada’s contributions based solely on defence spending doesn’t provide the whole picture.

Vance said in November that Canada is pulling its weight with NATO in many other ways, including a promise to lead a NATO force in Latvia.

The department of National Defence has so far not replied to a request for updated numbers.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3184310/r...mbers-need-to-pay-more-what-is-canada-paying/

 

[Rhood]

I love how every time trump,says something ridiculously stupid the nitwits come out to try to defend it.

Who needs a college education or knowledge when you got a big fucking mouth, no morals and no shame.

Entrepreneurs > College Educated Employees

 

[gatchaman]

Switzerland spends less than 1%, and nobody messes with Switzerland.

But those beating the drums for defense spending don't really support defense (Do you support Canada developing nukes?). What you really want is more meddling spending.

 

[brothir]

Norway needs to honor the 2% deal and increase the budget. Unfortunately I don't think there are any war hawks for me to vote for.

 

[Kingz]

I don't see why anybody opposes Trump on this. Pay up bums.

If broke ass Greece is willing to fork up...then the rest of you are criminal

 

[K1levelgrappler]

Maybe NATO should reduce its spending targets to something more realistic.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Trump’s Fair NATO Spending Demand Would Break Denmark’s Welfare State
Peter Levring
November 20, 2016

Meeting Donald Trump’s demands on fair defense spending could allow NATO-member Denmark to buy a dozen F-35 fighter jets and four frigates. It could also damage the cherished welfare state.

During his presidential campaign, the victorious Republican candidate raised alarm among allies by suggesting that the U.S. would think twice about defending a North Atlantic Treaty Organization member that failed to live up to the group’s commitment to spend 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense.

This is a long-standing source of frustration for the U.S., since only a handful of NATO’s 28 members regularly meet the target. But Trump is the first to have raised existential questions about the alliance since Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Denmark last met the NATO spending target in the final years of the Cold War, when Soviet forces were stationed across the Baltic Sea. Since then, the ratio of Danish spending has dropped consistently and totaled 23.2 billion kroner ($3.31 billion), or 1.2 percent of GDP, in 2015.

Welfare Trumps Defense
Helge Pedersen, a Copenhagen-based chief economist at Nordea Bank AB, estimates that meeting the 2 percent mark again would require about 15 billion kroner in extra defense spending.

That’s how much Denmark spends each year on supporting its universities, or five years of child support for its families.

After the Cold War, Denmark raised its participation in military operations abroad, with Danish soldiers and pilots fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Libya and Syria. But military spending is still a fraction of the cost of its welfare state -- less than one-twenty-fifth, according to the Finance Ministry’s 2017 budget draft -- and certainly less popular.

Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen has pledged to add 800 million kroner in security spending starting next year. Finding the money isn’t easy. Defense Minister Peter Christensen has said the government is struggling to gain support for its economic policy amid competing demands for tax cuts and more welfare from its parliamentary allies.

In any case, Denmark’s “budget deficit is already close to the EU’s budget limits," Pedersen said. "There’s really no way we can increase defense spending without cutting costs elsewhere.”

Aging Equipment

Raising taxes is also an unpalatable option for a country with the highest overall tax burden in Europe. And since Christensen has already ruled out Denmark meeting the 2 percent target any time soon, Trump is set for a disappointment.

Still, the president-elect has succeeded in casting the spotlight on an issue that rarely gets much public attention in the small Scandinavian nation. After his first conversation with Trump, Rasmussen reiterated his pledge to boost his country’s defense capabilities.

“We need money for international operations and Danish military equipment is more worn down than most people realize,” Johannes Riber Nordby, deputy director at the Institute for Strategy at the Danish Defense College, said in a phone interview.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ng-demand-would-break-denmark-s-welfare-state

Where is @Thames ???

And hahaha Denmark they need to pay up or GTFO!!!!!

 

[Arkain2K]

UK 'fails to meet' NATO national defence spending pledge
By Ben Farmer | February 15, 2017

Defence spending may have slipped below the 2pc level, experts said ​

A row over defence spending has erupted after a respected think tank said the Government was breaking its promise on spending two per cent of GDP on the military budget.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said Britain’s defence spending had dipped below the Nato benchmark figure, despite the government vowing to meet the target.

The analysis comes only days after Theresa May had boasted to Donald Trump of Britain’s military spending and lectured Britain’s European allies to spend more.

The calculation is likely to add to claims that the MoD used creative accountancy to say it was hitting the target.

One senior Conservative MP said the analysis showed how far defence spending had fallen in recent ears and how tight military budgets contrasted with Britain’s generous international aid spending. Labour said the

The Ministry of Defence rejected the figures, saying the think tank had got its sums wrong and Nato's own figures put the spending share at 2.21 per cent.

But IISS said it stood by the estimate from its annual Military Balance report, which showed Britain spent 1.98 per cent of GDP during 2016.

Nato members aim to spend at least two per cent of their GDP on defence, but few do. Donald Trump has demanded members stop freeloading on American military might and spend more themselves.

John Chipman, director general of the think thank, said: “In 2016, only two European Nato states - Greece and Estonia - met the aim to spend 2 per cent of their GDP on defence, down from four European states that met this measure in 2015.

“The UK dipped slightly below this at 1.98 per cent, as its economy grew faster in 2016 than its defence spending.

“Nonetheless, the UK remained the only European state in the world's top five defence spenders in 2016.”

Julian Lewis MP, chairman of the Commons defence select committee, said the row showed how far defence spending had fallen. Britain spent up to five per cent of GDP on defence in the 1980s and up to seven per cent in the 1950s.

He said: “What this shows is the absurdity and inadequacy of our treating two per cent as a target rather than a minimum.”

He said the Forces were struggling to get the MoD to pay for equipment and personnel while at the Department for International Development “they have X amount of money and have to think of ways to spend it.”

The MoD said the IISS calculation may have been affected by fluctuations in exchange rates, as the think tank presents spending figures in US dollars - which rose sharply against sterling in 2016 in the wake of the referendum vote for Brexit.

However, Andy Smith, CEO of the UK National Defence Association, said: "Today's revelation that the Government has failed to honour its pledge to meet the NATO target on defence funding is extremely disappointing.

Nia Griffith, shadow defence secretary, said the report had exposed a "complete and shocking failure" by the Government.

She said "The MoD was already barely scraping over the 2 per cent mark and had changed its accounting methods to give the illusion of keeping the commitment," said Ms Griffith.

"To be spending less than 2 per cent of GDP on defence is utterly unacceptable, particularly in this time of immense global uncertainty.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/14/uk-dips-nato-target-2pc-national-defence-spending/

 

[Arkain2K]

After that meeting between Trudeau and Merkel, I guess we shouldn't expect any increase in NATO spending up north.

Nice to see Germany finally agrees to start marching towards that pledged target though.
--

Trudeau says Canada one of NATO's 'strongest actors' without committing more money
Prime minister says there are other ways to measure Canada's contributions to the alliance
By Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press
Posted: Feb 17, 2017

​

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke about Canada's diverse contributions to the NATO partnership without committing to up its defence spending when he addressed a news conference in Berlin.

Trudeau and Angela Merkel addressed reporters Friday following their morning meeting and an impromptu dinner Thursday at the German chancellor's invitation.

Trump has called the 28-country alliance obsolete and U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis told his fellow defence ministers in Brussels this week that while the United States still holds NATO in high regard, it expects its allies to start spending more on defence or the Trump administration will "moderate its commitment."

Germany has signalled it will heed the warning and make attempts to boost defence spending, which Merkel brought up when asked about it on Friday.

But in Ottawa, there's little indication that any increase in NATO-specific defence spending is on the horizon.

Canada currently spends 0.99 per cent of gross domestic product on defence. That's below the NATO target of two per cent of GDP, which only a handful of alliance countries have met.

On Friday, Trudeau said that two per cent target is one all NATO countries agreed to, but there are many ways of looking at a country's contributions to the alliance.

"When you look at the countries that regularly step up — delivering troops, participating in missions, being there to do the heavy lifting in the alliance — Germany and Canada have always been amongst the strongest actors in NATO," he said.

He made the case that Canada is leading the battle group in Latvia, and working to procure more aircraft and ships for its military as two examples.

Germany vows to up NATO spending

Germany's spending stands at 1.2 per cent of gross domestic product, but the Merkel government has made commitments to spend more to edge that figure upward, German ambassador Werner Wnendt said in a recent interview.

Merkel repeated that commitment on Friday.

Trump is far from the first U.S. president to lean on its NATO allies, Wnendt added.

"We have heard this from previous presidents of the United States... that they said there must be a fair burden sharing," said Wnendt.

"That's well accepted in the alliance, so we will deliver."

During a June 2016 speech to Parliament in Ottawa, U.S. President Barack Obama softened his request of Canada by saying he wanted to see more Canada in NATO.

Prior to that, the Canadian ambassadors for former president George W. Bush were far more blunt in calling on Canada to pull its weight on defence.

On Tuesday in Brussels, Mattis made some specific demands. He called on NATO put a plan in place this year that lays out a timetable for governments to reach the two-per-cent target.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-angela-merkel-germany-1.3987562