• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

International EU does hasty reset of definition of defence spending

LeonardoBjj

Professional Wrestler
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
8,894
Reaction score
11,220
By Jan Strupczewski

  • New definition needed as spending caps eased
  • 'Defence-relevant' items will qualify
  • But some countries want broader scope
BRUSSELS, March 20 (Reuters) - When do state investments in arms factories, or the wages of tank crews and pilots not count as defence spending? Answer: When the EU rules say they don't.

Until a few days ago that was the case, with the bloc sticking to a narrow definition of spending on defence hardware.

54310360231_f1f308327a_z.jpg

On Thursday, EU leaders will study ways to mobilise hundreds of billions of euros to boost the military readiness of the bloc, which has hastily redefined what it classifies as defence spending.

The revamp, needed because of Russia's threats to its eastern flank and concern over the U.S.' commitment to European security, means the region's 27 national governments will get a four-year reprieve from EU deficit caps that will allow them to spend more on defence.

But while that spending - worth around 1.5% of Europe's total economy each year - will start to make up for decades of underinvestment in security, it can only be given the green light if everybody agrees on what defence spending actually means.

Before a rule change agreed by finance chiefs last week, the building of an ammunition plant was classified as construction rather than defence - something Poland discovered when it pressed ahead with a new 5 billion zloty ($1.3 billion) factory.

Until now, the defence category was quite narrow, allowing EU governments to apply it only to already-delivered hardware - tanks, planes, guns - while excluding the costs of training, hiring and paying new tank crews, pilots and mechanics.
54186028819_6bb66fe9b3_z.jpg

That will change as the EU broadens the category to include most things that are relevant to defence, including so-called "dual-use" goods that can be used by both the military and civilians.

These include stronger roads and bridges to support the passage of tanks, or the production of drones, helicopters, satellites, radars and underground shelters.

BORDERS?

The wider definition is more aligned with what NATO classifies as defence spending as part of a longstanding target for such expenditure to reach 2% of GDP. But it still leaves a lot of room for interpretation by national capitals.

"The debate went already very broad and now, of course, what you're seeing is specific member states coming with their own specific ideas on what else should be considered as defence," one senior EU official said.

While Italy shares no borders with Russia, its arch-conservative government wants the wider definition to include what it spends on dealing with migrants coming from Northern Africa - a request that will not fly, EU officials said.
53375976997_1a81aea2b5.jpg

EU officials say border protection can be defined as "defence" only if it is refers to part of a military installation built to prevent an invasion, rather than normal border guard spending on patrolling the sea to catch boats carrying migrants.

Spain meanwhile has asked for climate change projects to be included in the defence category, an idea the Commission dismissed in the same way as it did migration-control spending.

While cyber security in general would not make the defence list, EU officials said, computers bought by the military to prevent cyber attacks would qualify.

"The idea is that it has to be of defence relevance," a second senior EU official said.

https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...reset-definition-defence-spending-2025-03-20/
 
So everyone wants something to be included to avoid putting more money in military

Climate projects in defence spending is a bit interesting
Sure.
BTW debiloids does wants a lot of papers about geen dreams ewerywhere.

This ofc is big idiotism.

For some other cases: a lot of countries unlike U.S doesn't include GI bills as military budget.

Interesetingly that a lot of countries doesn't include border guards as def expenses cos in peacetime these are on M IoEF ( ministry of internal affairs ) payroll like policemans....
 
Border guards in europe does have different functions so armed and well equipped mobile groups IMHO should qualify ....
Cps they does work to prevent diversants, terrorists and criminals to enter country illegally, also to prevent smuggling ( there might be smuggled in batches with terrorists and explpsives too not just alco, tobacco and drugs etc ).
So boder guards does needs well equipped drones, thermals, mobile patrols, sensors and ground radars, CCTV and other kind of equipment plus highly mobile groups.

Ofc random unarmed money hungry immigrant is one thing but... fanatics sectants and other kind of terrororists might like pro criminals and pro diversants to appear well armed and equipped ....in order to make very big shit somewhere.



There are also aggressive immigrants attempting to sneak in another country because police and not rare cases their victims and Co are searching for them....ofc such contingent might also assist diversants and terrorists if will be paid.

In a lot of cases these aren't just some small crime petty criminals ....
 
I don't know how snails will define military threat for border today.

Thus far usually it was that if there are attempts to illegally import by any means explosives, detonators and military grade weapons then such stuff might be considered as potential military threat....
 
Income tax about to go up another 10%.
Not likely.

There are other kind of tax considerably more difficult to avoid or reduce with legal methods.
1. Land and mortgage tax.
2. Different duties and mandatory payments.
3. Tax in different ways on transport.
4. VAT
5. Excise and other kind of tax and duties on transport fuel etc.
6. Increase mandatory payments for filling etc certain documents in government and municipal institutions.
Considerably more unlikely to avoid to pay this stuff.
 
Not likely.

There are other kind of tax considerably more difficult to avoid or reduce with legal methods.
1. Land and mortgage tax.
2. Different duties and mandatory payments.
3. Tax in different ways on transport.
4. VAT
5. Excise and other kind of tax and duties on transport fuel etc.
6. Increase mandatory payments for filling etc certain documents in government and municipal institutions.
Considerably more unlikely to avoid to pay this stuff.
Possibly, still comes out of their income - one way or another, their annual take home will reduce considerably.
 
So everyone wants something to be included to avoid putting more money in military

Climate projects in defence spending is a bit interesting
Every country games this, there's no consistent definition. IE the US benefits heavily from dual use NASA research, but hat's not always defense spending. American nuclear development goes through DOE, etc.

It's also why comparing the US to other countries isn't easy, because most countries use the military for some internal law enforcement, but the US uses other agencies for that. Same with customs.
 
BTW in some countries such steps already are silently and slowly introduced.

For example with private cars ....
1. Registration fees increased....
2. Payments for number increased...
3. Mando insurance fees increased ...
4. Tax for car increased...
5. Driver's exams more expensive and courses too...
6. BTW in some countries also payment for paper plastic driver's lic peace too had been increased.
Etc....

Most likely soon will start normally milk also electric cars owners...where they will go....
 
Every country games this, there's no consistent definition. IE the US benefits heavily from dual use NASA research, but hat's not always defense spending. American nuclear development goes through DOE, etc.

It's also why comparing the US to other countries isn't easy, because most countries use the military for some internal law enforcement, but the US uses other agencies for that. Same with customs.

Oh yea im aware everyone gaming this, my country trying to as well currently

Just not a fan of it in current security enviroment in europe
 
BTW in some countries such steps already are silently and slowly introduced.

For example with private cars ....
1. Registration fees increased....
2. Payments for number increased...
3. Mando insurance fees increased ...
4. Tax for car increased...
5. Driver's exams more expensive and courses too...
6. BTW in some countries also payment for paper plastic driver's lic peace too had been increased.
Etc....

Most likely soon will start normally milk also electric cars owners...where they will go....
 
Oh yea im aware everyone gaming this, my country trying to as well currently

Just not a fan of it in current security enviroment in europe
When Finalnd will be Russia you will feel more secure. Berlin too will feel more secure.

If you don't want, then install mines etc and prepare. I think U.S will do with Finland the same as with Ukraine. They literally loves Kremlin damn a lot, both dems and reps. They are so loving their bottlemates in Kremlin and China....and selling overpriced weapons.... it is business and nothing special.
 

Ignored by Trump and menaced by Putin, the UK turns to the EU for defensive ties​

Dan Sabbagh Defence and security editor

As Trump seeks to withdraw the US from European defence, Keir Starmer is trying to develop closer ties with the UK’s neighbours

Donald Trump’s isolationism and Vladimir Putin’s menace leaves post-Brexit Britain in a delicate position. While the combination of US disengagement from Europe and the reality of Russian aggression has forced a reappraisal of security across the continent, Britain’s half-in, half-out status makes for complications.

The prime minister, Keir Starmer, wanted to showcase Britain’s credentials as a European military leader on Thursday, first with a visit to the Barrow shipyard where nuclear submarines are built and then to look into a meeting of 30-plus military heads, mostly from Europe, as they discuss how to create a post-war stabilisation force for Ukraine.

Yet the message was somewhat undermined by the EU’s announcement a day earlier that it would set up a €150bn defence investment lending scheme, from which the UK (and the US) would simply be excluded, because it is not a member and does not have an associate or special status like Norway or Ukraine.

In reality, the apparent bar is not quite so serious, as long as the two sides agree a defence and security pact soon. Labour has been pushing for a defence treaty with the bloc since before the election, and the hope is that negotiations will conclude in time for an EU-UK summit in May, which would give the UK partial access to the scheme.

The initial EU proposal – pushed hard by France, despite close Anglo-French working over the Ukraine stabilisation force – is that British manufacturers will then only be able to access 35% of the money available. That proportion is not set, however, and a successful negotiation may see an increase for the UK, or some other exception.

It will be a test for Labour, which has brought some sanity to the UK’s relationship with the EU but not otherwise sought to redraw the post-Brexit settlement. Under the Conservatives, the UK military pulled out of missions like the EU’s EUFOR peacekeeping mission in Bosnia amid fears that British soldiers would have to wear an operational badge with an EU flag on.

A key element of Labour’s forthcoming defence review was always going to be developing the arms industry to promote economic growth, even before the US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, declared last month that Washington was no longer “primarily focused” on defending Europe and Trump began his telephone diplomacy with Putin, with the two men discussing the fate of Ukraine.

The numbers working in defence are not necessarily large – 147,500, according to the ADS trade body – but 70% of defence jobs are outside London and the south-east. Manufacturing sites also make a critical contribution to local economies, in shipyards like Barrow or Rosyth on the Forth in Scotland, or at airfields such as Warton and Samlesbury in Lancashire, and trade unions heavily invested in their success.

But the events of last month have given the European defence effort a far greater urgency. Though Britain has always split its procurement between the UK, US and partners in Europe, the sight of Trump stopping military aid to Ukraine and halting intelligence sharing with almost no notice has not been attractive.

High-tech US weapons given to Ukraine such as the Himars rocket launcher or the F-16 fighter jet appear to have lost key elements of functionality. In the alarm that followed, the makers of the US F-35 jet were even forced to put out a statement saying “there is no kill switch” that the US could operate remotely at a moment’s notice, though a more realistic concern is that without continuing US logistics and software support, an F-35 would become unusable quickly.

The history of Anglo-American military cooperation is so long and deep that it hard to imagine it falling apart in a crisis even with Trump in the White House. But long-term military planning is also about contingency and what Britain needs is to deepen its security and defence industrial relationship with Europe not as an alternative but in parallel with its relationship with the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...tin-the-uk-turns-to-the-eu-for-defensive-ties
 
They're lying when they say they fear a Russian invasion. It's amazing how many people buy it.
 
I read some guy saying that the German ruling elite all ideologically agree with the Green Party, but they know that it's not electable, so they just put on a show while actually believing in delusional eco fanatic tier stuff
 

Ignored by Trump and menaced by Putin, the UK turns to the EU for defensive ties​

Dan Sabbagh Defence and security editor

As Trump seeks to withdraw the US from European defence, Keir Starmer is trying to develop closer ties with the UK’s neighbours

Donald Trump’s isolationism and Vladimir Putin’s menace leaves post-Brexit Britain in a delicate position. While the combination of US disengagement from Europe and the reality of Russian aggression has forced a reappraisal of security across the continent, Britain’s half-in, half-out status makes for complications.

The prime minister, Keir Starmer, wanted to showcase Britain’s credentials as a European military leader on Thursday, first with a visit to the Barrow shipyard where nuclear submarines are built and then to look into a meeting of 30-plus military heads, mostly from Europe, as they discuss how to create a post-war stabilisation force for Ukraine.

Yet the message was somewhat undermined by the EU’s announcement a day earlier that it would set up a €150bn defence investment lending scheme, from which the UK (and the US) would simply be excluded, because it is not a member and does not have an associate or special status like Norway or Ukraine.

In reality, the apparent bar is not quite so serious, as long as the two sides agree a defence and security pact soon. Labour has been pushing for a defence treaty with the bloc since before the election, and the hope is that negotiations will conclude in time for an EU-UK summit in May, which would give the UK partial access to the scheme.

The initial EU proposal – pushed hard by France, despite close Anglo-French working over the Ukraine stabilisation force – is that British manufacturers will then only be able to access 35% of the money available. That proportion is not set, however, and a successful negotiation may see an increase for the UK, or some other exception.

It will be a test for Labour, which has brought some sanity to the UK’s relationship with the EU but not otherwise sought to redraw the post-Brexit settlement. Under the Conservatives, the UK military pulled out of missions like the EU’s EUFOR peacekeeping mission in Bosnia amid fears that British soldiers would have to wear an operational badge with an EU flag on.

A key element of Labour’s forthcoming defence review was always going to be developing the arms industry to promote economic growth, even before the US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, declared last month that Washington was no longer “primarily focused” on defending Europe and Trump began his telephone diplomacy with Putin, with the two men discussing the fate of Ukraine.

The numbers working in defence are not necessarily large – 147,500, according to the ADS trade body – but 70% of defence jobs are outside London and the south-east. Manufacturing sites also make a critical contribution to local economies, in shipyards like Barrow or Rosyth on the Forth in Scotland, or at airfields such as Warton and Samlesbury in Lancashire, and trade unions heavily invested in their success.

But the events of last month have given the European defence effort a far greater urgency. Though Britain has always split its procurement between the UK, US and partners in Europe, the sight of Trump stopping military aid to Ukraine and halting intelligence sharing with almost no notice has not been attractive.

High-tech US weapons given to Ukraine such as the Himars rocket launcher or the F-16 fighter jet appear to have lost key elements of functionality. In the alarm that followed, the makers of the US F-35 jet were even forced to put out a statement saying “there is no kill switch” that the US could operate remotely at a moment’s notice, though a more realistic concern is that without continuing US logistics and software support, an F-35 would become unusable quickly.

The history of Anglo-American military cooperation is so long and deep that it hard to imagine it falling apart in a crisis even with Trump in the White House. But long-term military planning is also about contingency and what Britain needs is to deepen its security and defence industrial relationship with Europe not as an alternative but in parallel with its relationship with the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...tin-the-uk-turns-to-the-eu-for-defensive-ties
What kind of tech notch when their F - 16 were enough old to get replaced and U.S had prpved that they doesn't have balls to provide even 1 old U.S F-16, even if overpriced.
Both U.S reps and dems had proved that they are fearful pussies, Kremlin friendly traitors and money hungry weaklings loossers with real friends in China and Russia. Money hungry liars. Weak loosers.
 
Back
Top