Use the code eumadesimple at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: incogni.com/eumadesimple *** Correction: China Defense spending in 2023 was 1.64% of GDP. Not 1.5%.
We need to tax the rich privateers and capitalist, to be able to invest both in the green economy and military and more importantly reduce the wealth gap and strengthen the welfare state
5% is too much. 3-3.5% spent on equipment ideally designed and manufactured here and in some cases just manufactured here. The USA spends 3% as well, we don't need more than that since we aren't about the liberate some countries out of their oil supplies.
As such a "European", I do not feel any threat towards the integrity of the greek state, at least not from another state. I want my country Greece to exit NATO, because I do not see any benefits for Greece or for any of its other participating countries.
We really have to increase the defense spendings, but with money staying here in EU by supporting our military industries and not going to the US military industrial complex.
Europeans don't even purchase much from the U.S.... so I'm wondering why we still have transatlantic relations when it wasn't too long ago you were all purchasing way more from Russia and China. Tell me who are the real enemies of the U.S.
The reason why countries spend on U.S weapons is to get American protection/favor, but maybe if the U.S clearly withdraws from Europe this will probably change.
@@HJJ135 NATO needs reform it's not the Cold War anymore and Europe is not destroyed from the war like it was in the 1950's. Eastern Europe needs investment though.
Exactly! As a Polish citizen, I would love to hear that most of the spending stays within my borders and the rest is in the EU. Military spending can be used to create whole industries that when the conflicts settle can rebrand or create whole new companies with already massive investments put into them. That's a no-brainer decision for the future-proof economic side of military spending (just like the US did with their industries after WWII and the Cold War).
EU countries need to procure from EU manufacturers and not US ones. The EU cannot grow a capable defense industry if it spends on US made equipment. More focus on Eurofighter jets is needed.
Eurofighter is impossible for the reason that Germany and France its two biggest spenders by far have entirely differant goals in mind for military purposes, however the idea of Europe rebuilding its own militaro industrial strenght is necessary anyways
The EU needs to divest from the US full stop. US policy is the managed decline & deindustrialisation of Europe to remove it as a competitor. Their only interest in Europe is having military bases (as being stuck in the US reduces their ability to project credible power) & plundering Europe to protect their own interests & prosperity.
The problem is some EU countries want to benefit from it like France and Germany. They created Eurofighter with no other EU country just to benefit from it and not to make EU safer. That's the problem and that's how many EU countries still act. Not that it's something bad to make your country wealthier but they do it on the expense of other EU countries.
@@Freedmoon44 The question for me though is: as a person from a small country what difference does it make to us if we buy German over US. It makes sense to look for who can give us the best quality for the lowest possible price
@inimene-n7y de facto yes however theres a point where in order to not need the US even the small ones relies on more varied source than just mostly the US coupled with whatever they got from Europe
yes. although i hope we spend it smartly and make our own drones and weapons instead of buying useless shit like tanks, like we did a year or so again when we bought german leopards
Now thats an ally. As an american citizen i would approve if my country were to spend even more on your continents defence. All america wants is for our allies to take this seriously. Lithuania has my respect.
@@sun110maybe that’s what some Americans want, but trump specifically doesn’t actually care, he wants an excuse to leave Nato and let his best friend Putin steamroll Europe
EU has to spend more yes. But they need to develop their own military equipment so money spent stays within the EU. Also if the Donald wants 5%, I say good luck to them for getting to 5% themselves.
@@Ryanowningthe same people who say that military spending requires taking your healthcare away will fight tooth and nail to cut Musk’s taxes. Just something to think about.
The US doesn't need to spend 5%. The US already has a credible military. European countries largely do not. You have a lot of catching up to do and little time to do it.
Sorry, but if the Netherlands uses the 5%, it is almost 50 billion euros! The problem is not the money, but enough personnel. The Netherlands is currently short of 9,000 soldiers and there are 4,000 vacancies for IT, technicians, engineers and other highly educated positions. Suppose the Netherlands buys 100 extra tanks, 30 fighter jets, and 6 frigates. Who is going to operate them if there are no personnel?
Exactly this... we got to work smarter, not harder. We can invest this in ASML the microchip manufacturer having them research things to help us for drone technology or self driving things.
If you establish a foreign league for Europeans in english, then you can recruit 10K to 60K soldiers only from Finland they are already trained. There is no even any loyalty problem.
You cannot compare the defense budget of a nation at peace with the spending of a nation currently engaged in a territorial war. However, I fully agree with those who say we should stop spending money on American equipment. Instead of boosting the American economy, we should invest in more locally based companies. Even if, at times, better technology is available abroad, it is worth prioritizing the growth of our own local industry and economy.
Sweden and france have entirely self reliant militaries, and o think the uk is mostly self reliant other than the nukes and f35s bring bought from America, so if need be European countries can buy from them
The problem is, european nations don't want to depend on lets say germans handling all production and even if its american or south korean is purchased, it usually comes with agreememts of being able to extend manufacturing at home or at least parts manufacturing to be self sufficient while sticking to a "subscription for tank/plane/weapons licenses.
Europe doesn’t need to match the technology of America, it won’t be fighting America any time soon or any country supplied by America. We only have to worry about Russia and their weapons. From what we have seen in Ukraine, Russia have nothing that Europe can’t compete with technologically.
You also need high-tech if you want to develop weapons that matter on the global stage... Russia's military industrial complex is good enough to feed their lil' war in Ukraine, but they're not going to attract new customers abroad anytime soon. European arms manufacturers need to work together in a more efficient way if they want to lower the costs and increase production rates
@@artiefakt4402 I agree to everything you say. Of course, one also needs high-tech, but when a new high-tech military device is finished in Europe, it's produced in essentially prototype quantities because there exist no capability for producing these devices en masse. This is just one way that Europe is ill-prepared for war even with superior technology.
We have a massive metalurgical industry in germany and it will scale down. Building more in all of eu isn't possible as we don't have the energy capacity and won't have without more nuclear power plants. As for high tech... well the EU countries haven't had a high tech company or high-tech product since ~2009-2010
Well, lucky that the dumb shit green party closed all the reactors in germany, but now theres a more environmental solution, COAL out of all fucking things. And even France, the largest european energy exporter isn't building reactors.
Poland is buying lots of Tanks,Fighter jets,Rocket lounchers from South Korea.Some of these will even be produced in Poland later on.But still i agree with you.Sadly Finland purchased F16 instead of the fantastic Jas Gripen.
@@mariusztarnawski7864 Very stupid by Finland. Not only is JAS gripens specifically designed for northern european defense strategies, it would also have further integrated the swedish and finnish militaries...
A problem with the % rule is not directly equivalent to millitary efficiency and the rule can cause countries to purposefully bloat how much they spend even if that could do same thing for cheaper
I agree, spending targets are pointless. I would prefer an agreement about how many troops and equipment each member state should be able to deploy on a short notice.
The problem with debating the % is politicians will never decide on anything and be unprepared for war. Theres no "timeout we have to deceide the exact correct amount before you invade" 😂
yes, cost-effective methods and military efficacy is each of the 28 European Union members allocating 1 to 2 percent of their military defense spending of GDP to bolster the front lines is a bold strategy. This approach could significantly enhance collective defense by pooling resources to strengthen the most vulnerable borders adjacent to nations openly hostile to the European Union. by adopting a multi-layered approach like defense in depth could significantly enhance NATO's strategic posture. Imagine it as constructing multiple concentric rings of protection, each layer designed to slow down, deter, or detect any potential threats before they reach the core. NATO might establish a credible deterrent by allocating resources to armaments and defenses. This not only reinforces the security of front-line countries but also sends a unified message of solidarity. Historically, alliances have benefited from such collective investment
“It’s not possible.” “No, it’s necessary.” We need to defend ourselves, not merely from adversaries without the help of the USA, but from the USA itself.
5% year by year is not necessary and quite stupid. I speak this as Polish person, the one of the few countries that actually hits 3% goal this year, because we ordered so much weapons from Korea and USA, we won't be making same orders year by year because it doesn't make sense. It's a very stupid American view to require all countries, especially massive economies of Europe to spend 5% each year, we don't have like 8 aircraft carriers each, nor we need them. It makes sense to make a bulk order one year and then to move the military budget next year to other domain like education or healthcare, we aren't going to become American and drop healthcare just because Trumps demands so much money in defense.
Defence spending needs are less when you don't fight proxy wars around the world. Europe should have a very powerful, high tech defensive force. It does not take 5% GDP if you don't want to be encircling nations in multiple island chains, fighting proxy wars and destabilising governments that hurt your fragile capitalist egos.
@@felisenpai9625 And i wont allow my country to sacrifice billions defending a continent that does not respect itself or my country by securing its future freedom. You say you wont drop healthcare but you might have to if the US leaves NATO and your country does not spend what it needs to ward off russia. I actually see my country spending all this cash on your defense as one of the many reasons why i dont have free healthcare and free college.....ironic. Poland is one of the few NATO members who can say anything since they hit above the mark on defense spending and we respect them alot for it.
@@Ryanowningthe danger is Russia and they are flopping in Ukraine, I think having a basic eu army to develop European military manufacturing and provide a decent security measure to Europe and a 2% target for member nations will keep Europe safe, and that can be higher or lower depending on circumstances
@@Ryanowning The fact is that even now Europe's total defense spending is higher than the main threat Russia (who are at neatly 6% of GDP atm). What is needed aside from a minimal of 2-3% is better coordination of buying weapons and ammunition and do more of it within europe to lessen dependence on the ever more mercurial US.
I agree.. 3.5% maybe even 4% is shit gets even worse. But with MAD and France's nuclear umbrella I do think 5% is a bit absurd especially since they don't even reach 5% themselves.
Hows that EU economy 🤔 🤣 (from 15% behind to 30%) I hope we do withdraw from NATO, and i hope you get to see the invasion you cant stop cause you were too mad at daddy america 😂🤣🤣 Slavic Union has a better ring to it
The problem is not spending 3% or 5%, but rather having 27 armies repeating the basics of each of the armies multiplied by 27, thus not reaching the most important weapons, which are the most expensive and which mark the difference in the defense of a country, we must fight for a common defenseEuropean and not depend on the US.
That’s great for Europe and great for America 5% should be the target. We don’t have to take care of you and you can take care of yourself and prevent being colonized by Russia. A win win we would call this.
GOOD. The US shouldn’t be a world police. You spend money on your defense, we spend money on our defense, we stay in our respective continents except for trade and tourism. That is an ideal world.
Good. The Baltics, Poland and Finland should work together to an army and fortifications capable of stopping, or significantly slowing, a Russian advance. Because otherwise if Trump pulls out of Nato, we'll get a repeat of 1939 (Britain/France/now Germany nominally being with us, but not giving much support) which will be much more costly than 5% of gdp. But Ukraine, a much poorer country than us showed it could be done.
It will make sense if EU starts developing / buying most of its equipments, weapons and ammunitions locally... However, I doubt Trump would like it if US' military industrial complex was to lose its biggest client... creating a strong competitor in the process
@@ulfdanielsen6009it is actually, because thats basically why the US allowed for Europe to spend so little on their own military for so long, so they can become dependant on the militaro industrial complex of the US. Hell they went so hard on that theres several instances of countries wishing to buy more local like Belgium and Switzerland i believe who wanted to buy Rafales, European plane, but one visit from the US president and by the next week, immediate shift towards buying even more expensive and more US dependant F-35. You might say its because theyd get it faster, except neither Switzerland or Belgium NEEDS the stuff in a Hurry, they could afford to wait a really long time so long as the contract made France pay for delay etc... Its quite litteraly just because buying American means keeping better relation with the US, thus staying in their favor
They are not there for neither USA nor any country's security. They seem to be there to play a function in achieving the secret organization's goals - this secret organization governs all these countries. For example, it apparently wants to replace the current russian secret organization, with its own members.
You do realize that NATO even if it costs the US more than it costs the others is still beneficial for the USA? The USA has an empire wether you like it or not and with all empires, once they retreat back to their core territory and isolate themselves is when the downfall starts. I fully agree with Trump as an European that Europe needs to spend 5-6% of GDP on defence, but saying the US is footing the bill and not getting anything in return is rediculous, the west collectively has the influence it has because we stick together, without it the world would be a wild west.
We should simply allocate a 3,5% on *Made-In-EU* stuff. I'd rather have the rest 1,5% invested in the Healthcare Sector so we don't develop some Luigi Mangione's here in Europe too... 😏😏😉😉
@@oosidewalkoo Limiting to just the EU is self-defeating, placing arbitrary protectionism above security. It needs to be the whole of NATO, excluding the USA, and - indeed - _especially_ the UK from the EU’s perspective, given it being such a large European nation, regardless of the childish nonsense (on *both* sides) of Brexit.
@ I don't agree at all on what you just said but I respect your opinion, man. I'd say if Europe takes smart decisions and does very good investments, in 10y we should be able to leave NATO and adopt a "Neutrality" position if we'd become a Confederation of EU member states
@ How is limiting options for self-defence just to arbitrarily keep to an exclusive “club” a good idea? If the UK (or Canada, or other non-EU allies) has a manufacturing capacity and/or technical capability to make something the EU is lacking in that would help the EU defend itself from Russian aggression refusing it isn’t noble or wise, it is the definition of pettiness.
@ No. It's you "the definition" of stupidity, man. Big European Efforts towards UNITY wins about a population of 600 Million people on this continent. We can do pretty much everything except for some small / cheap things here in Europe. We don't need anyone other than OURSELVES.
Is it really that big of a deal if we get a luigi over here? Millions of people die every day, he only killed one guy. Like I don't praise the guy but as far as terrorists are concerned his damage was minimal.
This feels like... a waste of money. Like if you only consider how much you spend it's like throwing money at the problem hoping it gets solved. You should invest? Yeah sure, but last couple of conflicts have shown us that spending millions on vehicles that could be destroyed with a $200 drone makes no sense. EU should work smarter, not harder.
Tanks and drones fill different roles on the battlefield. You can not advance over an open field with just drones, that is a job that tanks are great at. At the same time a tank can not observe behind enemy lines, something drones are great at. They both have a place and a time. The place and time for tanks or others AFVs just isn't a static front lines. The problem with the conversation around military spending is not whether if it should be increased, it is that we are focusing around spending to reach a GDP goal. Instead of spending based on desired capability. Something that does actually cause a lot of money to be wasted. In many countries, including my own, you now see military expansion being done budget by budget, instead of being based on a master plan.
"Can be destroyed" isn't set in stone. The new tanks being researched in the EU come with 30mm autocannons with tracking radars specifically to target and destroy incoming drones for only a few dollars.
You can still spend 5% on research and Innovation for the weapons of the future. You don't have to spend it on drone targets. It might actually kick start the whole innovation ecosystem in Europe
Trump is calling for 5%, which he knows can't be reached, to give himself a better excuse to leave NATO. John Bolton, the then defence secretary in Trump's first term said Trump almost left NATO in 2018, but was persuaded not to by the adults in the room. There are no adults in the room this time around.
But honestly why does america need to be in nato? Look at the comments people are ok with 5% spending but don't want it to go to the US. Which is understandable they want to help their own country. Then some others don't want to spend 5% while still saying Russia wants to take over Europe. So then what Purpose does the US serve? What do we get out of this partnership?
@@hawkeyemihawkgettingmoneylord As a Swede i find it incredibly dumb that we joined NATO, it became clear during the joining process that russia is not as big of a threat as was thought, and Turkey forced us to do some unfortunately very questionable stuff. And now this increased spending at the recommended expense of welfare? Fuck that.
@@hawkeyemihawkgettingmoneylord Cos' Nato is a wall that keeps the peace. a Wall the USA Build of other Nations prevent another World war. if the USA pulls out of Nato it also means having to pull all of their troops back stationed out in the world. meaning the USA would lose all of its vital military positions too. because of the USA is not a member of Nato Alliance they lack the international backing to remain in those positions. Further more if the USA pulls out of Nato. said members don't need to listen to what you've to say either in Nato matters. which would also harm the USA's military industri. Because once again You are now leaving all of these for the most part pretty rich nations alone to develop their own independence from the USA as a whole. which will leave a Vacant seat of power for either China or guess what? Russia to slide in and fill. Heck Zelenski is hoping for a Nato membership and to have Ukraine forces take over the geo-political military positions that the American troops are occupying today. Nato is one of the biggest leverages the USA Holds over other Countries over here In Europe. Letting go' of it could leave it extremely woundable . as the leader of the free world.
3 months ago all the experts were claiming that Russia’s plan to spend just over 5% if GDP on defence for the next 5yrs was unsustainable & would lead to economic collapse but now we are expected to believe the far more diversified & probably vulnerable economies of NATO can do it with no problem.
@@HitachiTRQ-225without north Korea they might have been out of shells. Kim gave Putin 5 milion shells and hundrets of balistic missles, iran gave thousands of drones and Also gave balistic missles
I agree with Trump. We need to focus on building a military complex that is self-sufficent and does not require any foreign equipment. By creating a closed system and creating an EU army, we do not need NATO. By focusing on a massive nuclear arsenal we will not need to trust the US against Russia. Perhaps not what he had in mind, but he has shown us the way.
Sweetheart... Trump definitely doesn't want a self-sufficient Europe, he wants a Europe that's going to spend 5% of its GDP in US' military industrial complex... that's all !
Yep. “Be careful what you wish for” could certainly end up applying to Trumps rhetoric 😁. I don’t however wish for the EU to become what the US is now. I see two possible strategies ahead of us. 1. My first priority is to continue the trans Atlantic partnership, although with the EU being more self sufficient. This is to support and strengthen a global order based on mutually beneficial trade and friendly cooperation between democratic countries. This does however require for the US to be a good faith actor, which Trump puts into question. 2. If the US becomes too unreliable, then we need a highly integrated European defense union inside the EU, complimented by strong alliances with other willing European nations such as the UK and Norway. However globally, we should take a more neutral stance, not getting involved.
Bingo! Trumps an idiot but this is one thing he has done that will benefit NATO and as an american im glad that the EU is waking up and will stop relying on american money and strength to defend itself. Even if america leaves NATO the EU will consolidate into a closer group and offer a rival to america, russia and china and hopefully act as a buffer zone if it does not. The worlds economy will suffer for a bit but afterwards it will boom like never before and as an american i know mine will be at the top. This is a win win situation for all.
You people can barely hit 2% yet you think you can just replace America's military industrial complex like nothing? Sorry to break it to you that was a good idea 30 years ago when you still had time and money to build your own. That times gone Europe if broke your stuck with the US for at least 30 more years.
It's a bit unfair to assume we can do 5% when the US can have a gigantic budget deficit and raise the debt ceiling every year but EU countries have to follow Maastricht guidelines
Keyword here: USD is the world's reserve currency. Make the Euro the reserve currency and the U.S. would crash economically. That's how serious USD dominance is to the U.S.
@@TheKyosanim62 Something have to back world reserve currency. What does EU have rn? Strongest Military like the US? High Tech Industry like the US and China? Manufacturing power like China?
Renegotiate the Maastricht agreement. We need to be able to increase military and R&D spending without triggering that stupid excessive deficit procedure. Otherwise, the EU has no chance to compete with the rest of the world. That being said, 5% minimum is too much. 3-3.5 % would be enough. And we need to stop buying American equipment and weapons.
Go cheap on defense!!! I wanna see russia's new empire!! Dont ask daddy US to help, you think hes only there for himself so he should act that way, might as well be guilty of what they accuse you 🤣🤣
I think Europe would be much more inclined to spend more if we had a defence industry, and the money could stay in our continent. Maybe we should use this as an opportunity to do things at EU level, so we can share the burden and nobody has to be in too much pain. We really need those treaty reforms, why are they still stuck? This is not something that can be done at the national level, beholden to national politics. Not even the US would be able if all states were individuals.
GDP spending is a stupid way to measure the effectiveness of a military. Who knows what the money is spent on? I mean it can go to things that won't actively improve the fighting ability of a military, like for pensions, veteran healthcare, the upkeep of global base network etc. I want to know how much money is spent on the existing equipment's upkeep, procurement of new equipment and how much is spent on active personnel. Give me the numbers of how much things there is, how much are bought by category and how many men is on the payroll, and how much are they trained. Nothing else matters.
Yeah, the US military budget is inflated because medicaid for military vets is counted in, which it isn't for any European countries as far as I know since they are just part of the ordinary healthcare systems.
Before the war started, russia, the UK, France and Germany were all spending a similar amount on defence. But with very different results. France got a fairly capable military, with an aircraft carrier, nuclear submarines etc. While Germany does not, despite spending the same as France.
The USA is not only active in NATO, but also in the Pacific, for example, so they have higher expenses. France also has overseas territories, so it has interests beyond those of NATO. Every time the USA intervenes somewhere, refugees come to Europe, especially to Germany, and this should also be taken into account in such a Nato-budget.
But those migrants are the benefit not a burden so Germany should be thankful to USA for having possibility to be able to acquire such a big numbers of valuable skilled people.
@KulturystaChaosu, they are a benefit if they work and don't receive government subsidies and I think I read a article that says that only 50% off all migrants that came from the middle east works and the rest depends on government subsidies
@@KulturystaChaosu Every year (since 2016) the costs in Germany for refugees and asylum are 27 billion euros per year. A considerable sum that should definitely be taken into account when considering the NATO budget.
Bruh people tend to forget that both Germany and the EU give a lot more FINANCIAL aid to Ukraine then the US does. It would be unfair to not count the untold billions in aid as defense spending, because it's the only thing allowing Ukraine to literally invest a third of its economy (not the state budget, mind you) to defeating the orcs.
True, ukraine only exists thanks to germany. But everybiody is so ungrateful that i will vote against ukraine aid in a few days. They dont deserve it better!
Bruh, it would be be unfair to disqualify America's spending on Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan just because they're in the pacific. Europe needs to stop pretending they're the entire world and realize that it's WORLD war 3, not Europe war 3.
We dont need to, we already can defend ourselves. Europe currently ONLY stands because of the fear of US retaliation. I hope we withdraw from NATO and russia does what it likes 👍 and i hope you live to see the consequences of your own softness.
@@wvvwwvwvv Actually if ru managed to take political control over EU it would be usa that would be cooked. Imagine all those EU companies that make top-tier chip manufacturing machines used by TSMC and nVidia starting to export their stuff to China :)
In the case of France, we are atm not able to get a budget. The political crisis we have is still ongoing and the priorities are not on the miliitary. Moreover we have a pretty large deficit issue and we are expected to decrease spendign pretty much everywhere. It's gonna be very difficult to add another ...50bn? Yeah, not happening. What really bother's me is the US' attitude. I frankly am sick and tire of the USA's position and demands as if they are the senior partner in a personal union. The cold war is over and uncle Sam's priorities are not that of Europe.
No worries. Now that most are scratching the 2% mark, he wants 5%. Once that's achieved, he'll definitely want more. I think we all know what it's called. We have to invest more, there is no doubt about it, but so that we don't ruin our countries. Trump is not a statesman but a salesman
Be creative. Lend US dollars from US banks to fund the defecit. France having 100 billion Euros debt is an european problem, France having 100 billion U$ Dollars debt is a problem for the US banks stupid enough to lend them money. Also force US company doing business in the EU using Euros instead of U$ Dollars.
France: "WAIT WAIT dont invade france!!! Were in the middle of political issues, its a bad time!!" Russia: 🫡 "on our way" As an american i hope we watch, laugh and offer 0 support. You cant live under dads protection anymore, youre like 90 years old... blaming the US will not defend your homelands.
My expectation of a compromise is an official goal of 3.5% (just as much as the US) but then EU governments will find ways to cleverly get it down to about 3%. Suddenly pension for veterans, costs for upgrading and hardening infrastructure (making it ready for military use), and security assistance to Ukraine and other countries will suddenly all become part of the official defense budget. 😉
I think part of that is already the case for germany, an insane lot of their military budget not being spent on buying new stuff for their own military but just maintenance and quality of life
If European really believe Russia is a threat and Trump is a mad man who would leave the NATO as soon as the war started, Why do you guys still don't want to spend on military? Why do you guys still want to cheat?
@@Freedmoon44 Still it's good. Maintenance is even more important than new stuff. Because it's about readiness of equipment that is well known to soldiers.
Honestly, I’m in favor of this. More investment is desperately needed. Not only will Europe need to secure her southern borders and defend herself against Russia, there’s a nonzero chance that she’ll need deterrence against the United States. For that same reason, all investment should go to _European_ companies and _European_ capabilities. To rely on America today is madness. The E.U. must be able to stand alone. A well-coordinated, continent-wide defense-technological-industrial base could also do much to kick-start E.U. innovation and technological development. The Department of Defense is one of America’s largest investors in U.S. tech and engineering companies, and it’s actively working to recruit startups. Europe needs more such funds to encourage her own startup and development ecosystem. The talent and ambition are there: what’s missing is the money. TL;DR defense policy doesn’t just affect defense. It affects industry, technology, and trade, too: which is to say, _everything._
I know it's necessary, but I hate it, I absolutely despise this. Because of the never ending stupidity people will rather fight each other than look up effective solutions as a whole, global species. Everyone who starts a war for their own gain is already losing and there is no way around it. You always loose when you focus on your own gain by the wrong means, it's either a part of yourself, your close ones, or money etc...
the problem is that 5% always seems like a rather small number but considering 5% of the gdp in Germany for example would be almost half of the federal budget in 2023 and I don't think that that's viable.
Literally the great continent of Europe is right now unable to defend herself and it’s a shame and it’s also a shame an American president is pointing this out. France right now has literally nearly no army UK the same Germany the same Italy the same and it’s just wrong.
Actually the current state od European armies is the direct result of usa policies after cold war. usa demanded that EU no longer posed a threat to "poor defeated moscow". Because this could mess up with usa's plans to drag usa into usa-ru alliance vs China. That's why usa forced EU states to follow arms control deals etc. Not to mention non proliferation treaty. If EU had nukes and long range ballistic missiles - we would not fear ru.
It seems like for many people in the comments here, blindly critisizing America is more important than actually thinking about what is good for Europe. Increasing military spending in times of russian agression is really a no-brainer and it will be beneficial for both Americans and Europeans. People here write some mindless slop like "I don't want to do what you tell us, I want to be independent" ignoring the fact that Trump literally told Europe to become independent LOL. Europe needs a MASSIVE increase in military capacity and there is nothing wrong with diversifying supplies to both EU and non-EU suppliers. Obviously the main priority of every country should be increasing domestic military production, but for me as a Pole, it really doesn't matter if we buy some equipment from USA, South Korea, France, UK, Germany, I consider all of these countries as fellow democracies and our allies. Antagonising USA and EU is a bad idea, and it will only serve our enemies, China and Russia. Curiously, it's always the extremes, both MAGA Republicans and Europeand leftists that are trying to destroy transatlantic relations. United we stand, divided we fall, we need to remember that and not let our enemies to divide us.
As an Eastern European i do see a reason to increase the military spending. But not the way it's now, common EU defence spending should be the goal. Reliance on America won't do us any good. Being told to increase our defence budgets and buy more American guns, whilst the Americans ever more strangle EU with it's anti China (EU) laws. They only focus on China even wanting to negotiate peace with Putin and cede vast territories of our backyard all whilst being able to sit behind a pond and isolating themselves should they want to. How long until it's not ukraine negotiated over, but Finland and the Baltics? It is not for America (or Russia for that matter) to decide the borders of Europe.
It's not only possible, it's necessary. All imigrants sitting on benefits out, enhanced rights for citizens only and crank up the military industry again.
Trump:"SPEND 5% ON THE MILITARY NOW!!! Or else..." EU:"Or else what?" Trump:"Or else... I'd be really mad at you." EU:"Yeah, no. We prefer welfare." Italy (Meloni):"YES MY MASTER, ANYTHING YOU WANT!" Moral of the story, everyone must leave NATO. No NATO? NO % requirement for defence. Problem solved!
Ngl, I don't think spending is the major issue, is efficiency, right now, not only are our militaries poorly funded, but they are grossly ineficient, a join military structure and manufacturing and development is essencial imo, and I've been saying so for years. Also it should be an EU requirement to have mandatory military service for men, of basic recruit at least, and an yearly exercise until an appropriate age, or if ailments make it not feasable for the person. Honestly, the military structure within the EU should be MUCH more standardized and specialized, for example, people in countries that have little or no need for a navy, should train and serve in the navy of countries that would specilize in naval matters, same for Aerial combat and land combat. Also I think Aside from Army, Navy and Air Force, there should be a division for cyber war, and I mean a full military group, rather than groups inside of other military, federal or governmental institutions. Also, the EU should seriously stop expanding and focus on consolidation, such as the transportation reformation that's been going on, and I can say, that the funds are being beautifully wasted or even embezeled in some cases. Which goes to my next point, EU funds used in X country, should have the funds be used under the supervision and with the approvel of at least a couple of people that are NOT afiliated with X country. There's just too much corruption, and Eu funds just keep being missused, it's insane. Also, there needs to be a generalized ban on using houses as financial assets, they need to be treated as FAMILY investments, not as a means to gain money from, the housing markets keeps getting more and more monopolized and the bubble should burst anytime soon, and with all the problems going on I fear what might happen. Also implement the damn reformation in preparation for the UBI (Universal Basic Income), with automation and AI jobs will disapear at an unprecedented level and govs need to be prepared for that. I think what should be done is along the following, decrease the work hours from 8 to 6 and have it so that work places have to be open at least for 2 complete shifts, thus promoting hiring and at the same time diminishing workload, that'll also open the door for automation. Quick example. X company following these rules, before it had 10 employees, now because of the changes, and due to concerns of incresed spending on extra people, the company decides to reorganize it's structure, keeping the 10 people, in this case, some might increase, some decrease. And getting 1 or 2 new machines that automate part of the process, since before they were open from 09:00 to 18:00 and now they are open from 08:00 to 20:00. This way they actually increased their output, there was indeed an early investment cost, but overall costs barely increased and with the mentioned increased output, profit would increase. Specially since, if people have more free time, and stores being open for longer, the economy would grow. Also, should be illegal how soon several banks and gov sites close to the public, they should be available 24/7, they are ESSENCIAL services. As the previous model takes form, eventually the tax system should change from taxing the income of the people, to taxing the income of the companies, ideally to the point where the people simply aren't taxed, also any company operating within the EU would have to have an EU subsidiary and pay it's taxes, that would be standard no matter where in the EU.
We have to always remember that Russia is in OUR continent. We're the ones who are supposed to be calling for more military spending. Plus the money should be invested in our European military complex not the US
@@godnemesis4355 near-irrelevant. neither the US nor Russia are focused on that area, for both countries the logistics to get there are insane, and what would it serve Russia or US anyways?
From reading the comments, alot of people are eager about spending 5% of GDP, but will they be so eager if it means major cuts to medical care and pensions?
Rather than cutting or reduce spending in other sectors, spending ~5% more of my income on tax is better than the risk of being subjected to foreign rule or coercion. I’m not opposed to gritting my teeth and bearing it. It’s nothing our forefathers couldn’t bear.
@@sanserof7 5 % wouldn´t make Europe selfe reliant. Europe still is a Puzzle of little nations that all have their own weapon companies where a lot of money goes to waste. Maby make a united European army first and then spend the money
Problem with Europe vs the USA is that it is not ony single sovereign nation and thus cannot be successful in a war without the help and leadership of the USA. Simple. Look at the sheer amount of US bases around the world, troops stationed in rich nations like Germany etc. Even if Europe wanted to take the leadership in say a war vs Russia you will have France, Germany and UK wanting control and then smaller states fighting for who sides to be on and not to be on if their candidate is not the leader of an EU army. Wont work.
Why are you presenting it as those are the only two options? Tax the rich. And even if this would mean cuts it's still worth it to prevent invasion. Otherwise, you live in a country that spends 1/3 of the entire GDP on defense (like Ukraine right now) or end up under occupation in a sanctioned country and reduced to a serf.
It’s not just about the amount of money but where and on what it is spent. The US may spend 3.5% on defense but beyond that no one even the us pentagon that gets the money knows where it is spent. It repeatedly fail to produce a adequate spending report. Wasn’t it last year it tried to find out for the fourth time but failed.
And what is the conclusion of this? This video doesn’t make sence without excluding non-EU countries’ military spendings, with outdated 2023 datas and not even considering rest of the world military spendings? Why did we watch this? Whats the purpose of the video? What dis we compare exacly?
I'm sorry, but using Sweden as the example for how the the whole of scandinavia feels about the situation, is a bit weird, and especially in the cotext of trump, because scandinavia has some of the highest spendings on social welfare in the world, compared to their GDP per capita, so i don't think that scandinavia is even remotely close to being happy with trumps proposal on 5% of GDP, not even sweden, but instead they might be open to discussion on maybe putting the minimum around 2.5% or 3% of GDP.
Its not collective, the only reason Europe still exists is the mere threat of american military retaliation. You would be russian or chinese in about 2 weeks without US support.
@wvvwwvwvv hey mate, I am not a European by the way. Anyways, I just gave a perspective. Collective defense alliances are meant to ease the defense burdens, not to increase it.
Whatever the percentage 2% - 5% it needs to be unanimous. The spending should be mostly in each respective country but if their country cant provide then outsource only to other nato countries. We will only be strong together, period.
I am not sure why but people often forget Trump wasn't the first American politician to criticize NATO partners lack of spending. It was Robert Gates and many of his points are now coming to fruition.
I am from Portugal, To me it makes no sense that we should pay 5% when our country can barely pay itself, war sing a threat (only economic due to the backlash)
1% is for truly peaceful times (like a few years after the Soviet collapse but before the change of millennium) 2.5% sounds like a reasonable not so peaceful "peacetime" spending target 5% is for active war times 10% is for when you're starting to lose in said war times And anything higher is for when you're fighting an existential threat that will not allow you to exist as a free nation/people after the war is over
I am not against higher defense spending per se, but I am missing some crucial aspects in this debate. 1. How highly inefficient European, especially German, military spending are and that by just pouring more money into it doesn't necessarily produce a better outcome. We need to become smarter about our spending, by combining capabilities in EU and reduce inefficiencies 2. We are talking a lot about how much we should spend in GDP terms, I admit that I don't have a better variable to compare spending, but nobody I know directly knows what 2, 3 or even 5 % spending means for a national budget. Just talking about Germany, they currently spend 11% of their national budget on defense, under 3.5 % it would be 1/3 already, where does that money come from, from the welfare state, while anti-democratic and pro Russian parties are on the rise often due to social inequalities. This is a security aspect as well. (not to mention the 50% budget the 5% goal would take) 3. We stopped talking about how we could reduce the need of just arming ourselves. The great US who always criticizes the EU for not fulfilling their promises on the 2% goal - correctly so - is not fulfilling the NATO spending goals when it comes to development funds which would reduce the need of higher defense spending. If we are not able to contribute to efforts that reduce the global crisis potential, we run the risk of entering a arms race, that benefits nobody. But be clear I am not advocating for being naiv about it as well. But security can't be produced by simply having big military. maybe 4. because a lot of people mentioned it, our security infrastructure and production must be independent from the US that also means that we can't continue buying weapons from them and need to be able to have own sufficient European production capabilities.
As is often the case, getting a little silly with the comparisons. I know emerging economies love PPP and it can be useful but like all things involving currencies it is imperfect at best - can you buy a house and phone in India for a lot less than Germany for instance, sure, but which phone and house do you really want? Everyone agrees 2% is (never was) sufficient; 5% is just ridiculous however, for the bigger countries that have many other commitments. We can all see this is going to be negotiated down to about 3% and will include a few years to get there. Looking at countries currently in a hot war isn't that helpful, when you are in a 'hot war' you spend literally whatever it takes no matter what. On a personal level, I do think the country I live in needs to be spending between $105-$115 billion on defence listening to the experts. What is infuriating is that there is already enough tax money collected to be doing this, we just have an usual ability to waste tax money where I live. The gov spends over 1.2 trillion but whether we are wasting it on the most expensive high speed line in the world, or the most expensive nuclear power ever, or hundreds of millions spent designing bridges for our biggest city that they didn't even bother to build, it is just nonstop waste. Then when you include all the oversea's development assistance which amounts to tens of billions each year - which I don't understand why it is taxpayers here paying for the education of children in a country on the other side of the planet when that country is spending its tax money on other things for example (& they hate us either way). In fact, I dread when the pm flies out the country because every time he shows up at a conference he agrees to give away yet more billions of taxpayers money. I think 3 to 3.5% is enough, I don't believe eu countries will make any real progress towards integrating defence and I also don't believe that the usual laggards will keep to their agreed % of gdp as soon as the eyes of the press are on something else. We can easily repel Russia as it stands (despite media hysteria [remember, everyone always has an agenda]), but hard power counts and if it 'kicks off' in Asia we won't be any help if we can't project 'power' so that's the theatre that matters.
People must remember that there were valid reasons for the EU's historically relaxed stance on defense spending. Before 2021, there was no active war, and while Russia frequently engaged in saber-rattling, these actions were not unprecedented. The annexation of Crimea in 2014, however, should have been a major wake-up call-it was a strategically motivated move tied to the Black Sea Fleet's presence on Ukrainian territory. When Russia began amassing troops near Ukraine, it signaled a clear escalation. Yet, the EU relied on its usual approach of political negotiations and diplomatic pressure, assuming it would be enough. The invasion proved otherwise. Now, the EU must face reality. Defense isn't just about soldiers on the ground; it's about stockpiles, production capacity, and the ability to scale up rapidly. A credible defense means having the infrastructure to field a massive army within six months, not the years it currently takes. Without this, the EU remains vulnerable.
I'm from South-East Asia and I would like to know what Europeans think about this situation. Should they keep relying on the US for support or better their own military?
I live in Belgium, 70% seems to agree that we need to spend more on defense. The division here comes from whether we should invest in European arm dealers or American ones and how we are going to fund this. The right wants to reduce social spending in various ways and the left wants to raise taxes for the rich, some call for both. We largely agree on the goal but not on how to achieve it.
Both, I like having US as an ally but would prefer having our own defence sector and a form of unified military in EU. I'm actually really happy with what my country of Estonia is doing with procuring Turkish, Israeli and Swedish armaments.
German here, take a look at Ukraine. Do you want to beg for weapons in case someone attacks you? Having to ask permission to use a weapon in a way that is most effective for you? To have to fear that the political situation of your "helpers" will cut or completely deny you the necessary resources that keep you and your country alive? You can answer the question yourself, it's actually not that difficult to decide
For many small and medium countries, mostly on the east side, there is no alternative to US Army. For example Baltic States - Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have only aroud 6m people together. Even if they spend 10% of GDP they have no chance against potential agession. French and British armies are underfunded for years. Germany' Bundeswehr is in even worse condition. The only real military power that can stop potential russian agression is US Army. Poland has been spending above 2% for last 10 years. This amount will increase to 4.7% in 2025. However big chunk of that money goes to USA and S. Korea. Poland plans to have 1800 advanced tanks. Even if we say half of it is more realistic, there is no production capacity in Europe. Europe produces 50 tanks (Leopard II) per year. Similar situation with rocket artillery and almost every big platform. It is a problem for Europe. Huge militarily dependence on USA means less independence in economy. More taxpayers money transfered to USA means less jobs in Europe. West Europe don't want to spend more but want East Euorope to buy from them. East Europeans buys from USA because its faster, sometimes better and cheapper. Plus they think being USA's client makes you safer.
I see lots of comments about people agreeing European countries should spend more, but by having everything manufactured, engineered, developed, etc. in Europe. I'm American and don't disagree with these comments. However, the biggest potential Achilles heel in this thinking is more of the logistical aspect. Because of the proximity of all those countries and how close they are to Russia, China, Iran (etc.) is that the two most high priority targets in a war with China and/or Russia will be 1) communications, and 2) the ability to transport both weapons and munitions to various battlefields and theaters. All the advanced technology in the world does no good at all if it can't be rapidly manufactured and effectively transported to theater. The US is in a way unique, but not necessarily because of the ocean. Strategically, our unified structure/command was built around logistics. For example, our river systems are wide enough, or have been made wide enough for large transports to pass through. It's great for things like farming and produce, but also is important startegically for energy transport, military movement, and even large weapons deployment. Besides the rivers, the terrain was and is an obstacle due to the sheer size of the country, so way back in the 1800s a large and expansive railway system was built and is still maintained, which allows for another option for transport of all logistics (both military and other products). When our roads were initially built, they were built strategically with troop movements in mind. Therefore, it would require a successful attack on multiple levels of core infrastructure to really slow that down. In WW2 we developed something called the Defense Production Act which was a way to rapidly retool/refit private industries, like vehicle (Ford, GM, etc.) to switch over fairly easily from normal production to producing things like tanks, jets, engines, ammunitions (etc.). During the pandemic we saw it put back into use when some auto manufacturers were tasked to build ventilators since there was a shortage worldwide. It showed where we needed to improve on various areas of infrastructure, even though it wasn't a war per se. What I am saying is that Europe would need to undertake massive, expensive and simultaneous things to improve infrastructure for rapid deployment to all countries if attacked, and in multiple ways to transport everything to battlefields. At the same time, it would need to do as many of you suggest by developing its own form of military complex with multiple sources being able to produce various types of necessary equipment, so no one or few attacks crippled any war effort or counter-offensive. All of this would likely cost multiple trillions of dollars since it would need to be done kind of in concert, or within a pretty short period of time.... say 15ish years. I agree with many of you, but I can almost promise, any attack in Europe or various countries in Europe will be aimed at logistics, since it really was never developed extensively after WW2. The US are allies, and I don't see Trump pulling out of NATO. What his comments have misinterpreted as is that there are many countries that don't and haven't even spent the 2% to 2.5% of GDP on defense, as was part of the charter. The US has bolstered much of that cost. After Russia invaded Ukraine you did see all the countries that border Russia directly immediately up their defense budget as a result. Russia has invaded 2 countries in the last ten years (Crimea in 2014 and now Ukraine), so they obviously haven't felt too threatened by Europe's response. I would take Trump's comments, along with Putin and China's actions as the alarm clock to not wait any longer to start making changes. Because, unless there is a nuclear strike, Europe will be the first targets in any escalating war due to the close proximity, and the fact no country can force project across large bodies of water due to lack of large aircraft carriers and large amphibious assault vehicles. This is where we see China concentrating its build up, but it is due to them wanting Taiwan and not really having a realistic goal of assaulting the US homeland. Edit: incidentally I see some talking about 5% spending to be too massive. However, the US currently only spends about 3.5 to 4% GDP on defense. In WW2 that number grew to near 40%. Personally, I would like to see us spend closer to around 7% on military. This would be a deterrence because China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and India combined could not match that expenditure. That in itself is a deterrent for war. It would be a little more expensive for us, but not nearly as expensive as a large scale war would be if it broke out, and would save probably millions of lives globally, and save any mandatory military enlistment (at least here in the US).
Spending more money on defense is all good and nice. I agree. But it is also important to make sure that money spend on military (and not only there - money spend on ANYTHING) are being utilized as efficiently as possible. Because, what is the point of spending huge amounts if they will be lost to corruption and inefficiency? Spend more? YES! But wisely and with efficiency.
@tomorrowneverdies567 lol, why? maybe because during the past 100 years all russian neighbours were attacked or occupied by kremlin...go check eastern europe history btw and then (I hope) you will make some sence
I am open to the idea to spend 5% of GDP on defence, but it also really matters which other aspect will suffer from this increased budget such as healthcare and what not
I have nothing against 5% of my tax being spent on defence. The problem with taxes only exist when we do not know what they will be used for. In this case we know it will be used against the threat posed by Russia and China. Money well spent! And I hope more of my taxes will be used to send arms to Ukraine. Ukraine is doing the job none of us want to do on our doorstep. I am grateful
LOL.😂 You did the math wrong. It's 5% of GDP not 5% of your taxes. Depending on the country you live in this could be between 50 to 100% of your taxes.😅
@@darthmaul8912 Germany GDP per capita nearly 50k. My gross salary slightly under 100k yearly which is basically cut in half to 50k net after tax. If 5% of the GDP is spent on defense that accounts for 2.500€ each person early. That is 5% of my taxes 😘
@@SHAKINGBELIEFS You did the math wromg again. GDP = gross domestic product = Bruttosozialprodukt That is the sum of ALL domestic financial activities and not the annual federal budget. Germany has a GDP of about 4 trillion €. The federal budget is about 400 billion € so just about 10% of GDP. 5% GDP for Germanys military would mean about 50% of it's budget not 5%. In case you don't know that's 25.000€ or half of all the taxes you pay. Even more than that in the next years. The CDU pledged to reduce taxes by 100 billion. The FDP promises 188 billion Euro. And the AfD is somewhere in between. 400(budget) - 188(taxcuts) - 220(military) billion Did you notice somethig? If the right keep their promises you will be paying less taxes. Let's say 40k but 100% of that money will go to military. Good luck raising kids or if you lose your job.
@@darthmaul8912 Well, it's a bit misleading, and actually, both of you are wrong. The Federal Budget, or Bundeshaushalt, is not the entire German Budget (I did not know this myself until 10 minutes ago). There are also expenditures for the States (Bundesländer), the Municipalities (Gemeinden), and Social Security (Sozialversicherung). Combined, this amounts to around 2 trillion. So 5 GDP percent would be about 10% of the total German Budget, or as you said, around 50% of the Federal Budget. Although the military is (more or less) fully funded by the Federal Budget, things like streets or Railways (which almost exclusively receive funding from the Federal Budget) would face significant problems because nearly half of the money would disappear. Most of the other areas would be worse off but should remain relatively stable, since they also receive support from other levels. (Of course, this assumes the Federal Budget stays the same. In reality, it would probably see a massive increase.)
@@michael91009 Why are you thinking we were both wrong? I did talk about the FEDERAL BUDGET the entire time. Which is about 400 billion as I stated. In fact since they government didn't release the full numbers yet I was quite optimistic to state 400 billion because 2023 it was 356 billion €. As you stated yourself it is the federal government who did spend for its military not the state or regional governments. Good god that Bavaria didn't got their own army (yet).😅 Stating that the about 600 billion for social insurance is part of Germanys budget would be false. No politician would dare to touch that money. Even less for military expenses. Especially not the CDU or SPD who got by far the oldest demographic of all parties. You could argue that not ALL taxes collected goes to the federal budget which is in fact correct but I never claimed that this would be the case. My argument still stands. 5% of GDP for military would be madness. West-Germany did this in the 50s but with much higher taxes (especially for the rich) and without debt ceiling (Schuldenbremse). Merz is a former Blackrock employee and Weidel worked for Goldman Sachs. Both and Lindner promised to cut taxes especially for the rich while increasing military spending at the same time. Ether they are lying or this will collapse soon because the math doesn't hold up to their promises. Lindner even stated that Germany should "mehr Miley wagen". Which is funny because Argentina is the only OECD country which performed even worse than Germany in 2024 (-0.3 vs -1.2%). That's like beeing second last in a race and turn around seeing one guy in the distance even slower than you and decide to copy his workout routine for the next race.🤦🏼♂️ I did bet with my best friends on the year 2029.5 for social collapse at the latest more than 10 years ago. Not with money because what would that be good for in case I'm right?🤣
Lithuania is considering to increase the spending on defense to 5.5-6.0% of GDP per year. The decision will be made this year, probably sometime before the summer kicks in.
5% for every NATO country is ridiculous, lets keep the aim between 2 and 3% so defence gets the boost it so desperately needs and our standard of living stays up there.
Yeah 5 percent is absolutely ludicrous.. 2 is understandable, 3 is still realistic and makes sense with the current state of the world, but 5 is just insane
The only way I see spending 5% of GDP as long-term viable is if we are engaged in an active war or if we invest all that money locally. I bet that American guy wouldn’t be happy if every other NATO country stopped buying American military equipment unless an equal investment was made in return. A 2.5-3% budget might be viable long-term, but the reality is that most nations are already drowning in debt. Increasing the any specific part of the budget that quickly is not good for financial stability.
it is important that the increase is on well thought out things so that you don't just throw money away on bad things to increase gdp, every bit should be the best for the whole
I would propose - if you're not meeting x%, you fill the gap with people. I.e. the less you spend, the more people you will have to send. That would quickly turn the priorities
Ain’t going to happen. 5% would mean NATO was paying for the US defence of the Pacific and South China Sea; nothing to do with Europeans. Less than half of what the US spends on defence is committed to defending the NATO area. Any European contribution to the defence of the Pacific and Far-East will only ever be a tiny fraction of defence spending. Conversely, the US has a huge interest in defending Central and Western Europe.
A 2% is slightly acceptable, everything above that is wartime spending and absolutely unacceptable as of now. Even though we are in a soft war with Russia, we have NO justification for increasing spending, especially when European nations are in trouble both socially and economically. It's not our concern if Americans don't enjoy a welfare state, but I (like many others in the continent) enjoy it and don't wish to give it up in the name of defense.
@@andrejparunovic And whats the point for countries bordering Russia to be in NATO with western European members don't give a shit because they know that in case of War Easter Europe and USA will be fighting not them so they can have shitty military.
Huh, I'm surprised at your closing statements in a very positive way. I agree with all the sentences which I never would have predicted from this channel. As for the defence target we should aim above 3% to compensate for underinvestment in the past decades. 5% is not feasible in any near term future. 3% can be accommodated easily by cutting useless spending. It would be nice to at least build basics in Europe like ammo factories.
I would totally agree on a 5% strategic independence spending goal for the EU and European NATO countries. Not just the military itself, but also energy independence, military industry, resource control and aid for Ukraine and other countries at war with our rivals (which may include the US, depending on the actions of their new president)
Maybe rather than spending 5% the way we have been - on separate projects for each country or perhaps a few countries together - we could spend 3% on fewer, but larger, projects. This will mean less R&D cost when amortised over production runs. The US is spending 3.4%, but they are the superpower, we are not. But then all of us have to agree on the requirements for these weapon systems. So, I don't think it will happen. Another thing is, the US has a single military, which means that for example, their air force doesn't just have thousands of fighter aircraft, they also have niche capabilities. Various bombers, transports, etc. EU nations have far smaller militaries, which means we all just cover the basics - the same basics. Sure there is airlift capability, but not of the same variety as in the US for example.
Germany should spend that money on energy independence if anything. People dont understand how much 1% is, but it being said by Trump you don’t expect him to put much thought into that
I'd love for that to happen. Thing is a lot of that has died in the early 2010s and as it stands right now there is a lot of lobbying against it. I'd love to see solar panels everywhere but the focus right now is on other things
@ I still think modern nuclear is the go-to, even if it’s more expensive short term, and our issues are mainly with delivering electricity in our long country, it’s an energy source you can plan around unlike wind and solar, just like coal or hydro, but you don’t have that luxury like we in Sweden do. In the meantime you’ll buy from us, or we’ll buy your coal powered energy when the wind, sun isn’t out. It’s sad to see anti-nuclear power has culture, tradition and nuclear weapon fears in germany
Use the code eumadesimple at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: incogni.com/eumadesimple
*** Correction: China Defense spending in 2023 was 1.64% of GDP. Not 1.5%.
Yes it 100% is possible for us to spent 5% of GDP on defence, it just means we need to sacrifice on other goals
We need to tax the rich privateers and capitalist, to be able to invest both in the green economy and military and more importantly reduce the wealth gap and strengthen the welfare state
I don't mind spending 5% of GDP on defence, but I want those 5% to be spent on EU military manufacturers and NOT American.
no no no
cant have that
The EU is an american proxy, so good luck with that
Yes, agree with that.
@@0ptic0p22 If we really want, we can.
5% is too much. 3-3.5% spent on equipment ideally designed and manufactured here and in some cases just manufactured here. The USA spends 3% as well, we don't need more than that since we aren't about the liberate some countries out of their oil supplies.
As Europeans we need to rely on ourselves, not the US, Rusia or China
Mr Nigel Farage will not like that idea 😂
@@guleiro shit, I guess he doesn't believe in what he's saying then.
As such a "European", I do not feel any threat towards the integrity of the greek state, at least not from another state. I want my country Greece to exit NATO, because I do not see any benefits for Greece or for any of its other participating countries.
@tomorrowneverdies567 then Turkey might do what russia did and taake what they want
@@guleiro Who cares for Britain anyway?
We really have to increase the defense spendings, but with money staying here in EU by supporting our military industries and not going to the US military industrial complex.
Europeans don't even purchase much from the U.S.... so I'm wondering why we still have transatlantic relations when it wasn't too long ago you were all purchasing way more from Russia and China.
Tell me who are the real enemies of the U.S.
The reason why countries spend on U.S weapons is to get American protection/favor, but maybe if the U.S clearly withdraws from Europe this will probably change.
@@HJJ135 NATO needs reform it's not the Cold War anymore and Europe is not destroyed from the war like it was in the 1950's. Eastern Europe needs investment though.
or being sold to Middle Eastern Monarchs and Juntas, who then sell it to terrorists like in Sudan.
Exactly! As a Polish citizen, I would love to hear that most of the spending stays within my borders and the rest is in the EU. Military spending can be used to create whole industries that when the conflicts settle can rebrand or create whole new companies with already massive investments put into them. That's a no-brainer decision for the future-proof economic side of military spending (just like the US did with their industries after WWII and the Cold War).
EU countries need to procure from EU manufacturers and not US ones. The EU cannot grow a capable defense industry if it spends on US made equipment. More focus on Eurofighter jets is needed.
Eurofighter is impossible for the reason that Germany and France its two biggest spenders by far have entirely differant goals in mind for military purposes, however the idea of Europe rebuilding its own militaro industrial strenght is necessary anyways
The EU needs to divest from the US full stop. US policy is the managed decline & deindustrialisation of Europe to remove it as a competitor. Their only interest in Europe is having military bases (as being stuck in the US reduces their ability to project credible power) & plundering Europe to protect their own interests & prosperity.
The problem is some EU countries want to benefit from it like France and Germany. They created Eurofighter with no other EU country just to benefit from it and not to make EU safer. That's the problem and that's how many EU countries still act. Not that it's something bad to make your country wealthier but they do it on the expense of other EU countries.
@@Freedmoon44 The question for me though is: as a person from a small country what difference does it make to us if we buy German over US. It makes sense to look for who can give us the best quality for the lowest possible price
@inimene-n7y de facto yes however theres a point where in order to not need the US even the small ones relies on more varied source than just mostly the US coupled with whatever they got from Europe
Lithuania just announced it will spend 5.5 percent of GDP on defense.
yes. although i hope we spend it smartly and make our own drones and weapons instead of buying useless shit like tanks, like we did a year or so again when we bought german leopards
Now thats an ally.
As an american citizen i would approve if my country were to spend even more on your continents defence.
All america wants is for our allies to take this seriously.
Lithuania has my respect.
@@vol.4691 The new Leopard tanks are pretty good. The Leopard 26a or below is shit.
Unfortunately thats almost non-relevant. Becouse similarly to Estonia and Latvia, Lithuania cannot defend themselves even with 10% military spending
@@sun110maybe that’s what some Americans want, but trump specifically doesn’t actually care, he wants an excuse to leave Nato and let his best friend Putin steamroll Europe
EU has to spend more yes.
But they need to develop their own military equipment so money spent stays within the EU.
Also if the Donald wants 5%, I say good luck to them for getting to 5% themselves.
No doubt we're going to cut Medicaid to cover the increase, as a Medicaid recipient I have mixed feelings, but the world is getting pretty dangerous.
@@Ryanowningfunny how Donald’s party is always happy to axe Medicaid or housing support, but considers taxing men like Musk a capital offense.
@@Ryanowningthe same people who say that military spending requires taking your healthcare away will fight tooth and nail to cut Musk’s taxes. Just something to think about.
Well if that is what you really want
The US doesn't need to spend 5%. The US already has a credible military. European countries largely do not. You have a lot of catching up to do and little time to do it.
Sorry, but if the Netherlands uses the 5%, it is almost 50 billion euros! The problem is not the money, but enough personnel. The Netherlands is currently short of 9,000 soldiers and there are 4,000 vacancies for IT, technicians, engineers and other highly educated positions.
Suppose the Netherlands buys 100 extra tanks, 30 fighter jets, and 6 frigates. Who is going to operate them if there are no personnel?
well... You could invest in drones? Work for all those engineers.
Exactly this... we got to work smarter, not harder.
We can invest this in ASML the microchip manufacturer having them research things to help us for drone technology or self driving things.
@@marilynlucero9363 Now we’re talking.
Spend that additional funds to buy equipment from Ukraine for Ukraine.
If you establish a foreign league for Europeans in english, then you can recruit 10K to 60K soldiers only from Finland they are already trained. There is no even any loyalty problem.
You cannot compare the defense budget of a nation at peace with the spending of a nation currently engaged in a territorial war. However, I fully agree with those who say we should stop spending money on American equipment. Instead of boosting the American economy, we should invest in more locally based companies. Even if, at times, better technology is available abroad, it is worth prioritizing the growth of our own local industry and economy.
Sweden and france have entirely self reliant militaries, and o think the uk is mostly self reliant other than the nukes and f35s bring bought from America, so if need be European countries can buy from them
Trump only know of coercion and not of cooperation.
The problem is, european nations don't want to depend on lets say germans handling all production and even if its american or south korean is purchased, it usually comes with agreememts of being able to extend manufacturing at home or at least parts manufacturing to be self sufficient while sticking to a "subscription for tank/plane/weapons licenses.
Europe doesn’t need to match the technology of America, it won’t be fighting America any time soon or any country supplied by America. We only have to worry about Russia and their weapons. From what we have seen in Ukraine, Russia have nothing that Europe can’t compete with technologically.
Are you sure? Once you develop military complex would try to influence politic and want more war for their profits. That's what happened in US.
If we have to spend 5%, it should all be purchased from within the EU.
Only we don't have to spend 5%.
@tomorrowneverdies567 Not currently, but if we are spineless and gives into the lunatics demands it is 5%.
That would ruin the whole idea, you want your vassals to pay tribute not to develop by themselves
@@celeridad6972 precisely.
@@dianabialaskahansen2972LUNATIC!? You have a INVADING ARMY at your doorstep, and you want to be complicit!? Ridiculous.
Hopefully, Europe will use this opportunity to improve traditional industrial capacity, like metallurgy, rather than just focus on high-tech.
You also need high-tech if you want to develop weapons that matter on the global stage... Russia's military industrial complex is good enough to feed their lil' war in Ukraine, but they're not going to attract new customers abroad anytime soon.
European arms manufacturers need to work together in a more efficient way if they want to lower the costs and increase production rates
@@artiefakt4402 I agree to everything you say. Of course, one also needs high-tech, but when a new high-tech military device is finished in Europe, it's produced in essentially prototype quantities because there exist no capability for producing these devices en masse. This is just one way that Europe is ill-prepared for war even with superior technology.
We have a massive metalurgical industry in germany and it will scale down. Building more in all of eu isn't possible as we don't have the energy capacity and won't have without more nuclear power plants.
As for high tech... well the EU countries haven't had a high tech company or high-tech product since ~2009-2010
Well, lucky that the dumb shit green party closed all the reactors in germany, but now theres a more environmental solution, COAL out of all fucking things. And even France, the largest european energy exporter isn't building reactors.
Europe is pretty high tech itself.
Europe should spend more but on european weapons, European engineering, European made, not buy everything from the US
Poland is buying lots of Tanks,Fighter jets,Rocket lounchers from South Korea.Some of these will even be produced in Poland later on.But still i agree with you.Sadly Finland purchased F16 instead of the fantastic Jas Gripen.
You will buy from China and Russia.
@@mariusztarnawski7864 Very stupid by Finland. Not only is JAS gripens specifically designed for northern european defense strategies, it would also have further integrated the swedish and finnish militaries...
Europe has a lot of technologies shared with the US. An example is the US tank cannons are German.
Europe has the ability to do it for themselves!
yes weapons whit restrictions is bad ask Ukraina
A problem with the % rule is not directly equivalent to millitary efficiency and the rule can cause countries to purposefully bloat how much they spend even if that could do same thing for cheaper
I agree, spending targets are pointless. I would prefer an agreement about how many troops and equipment each member state should be able to deploy on a short notice.
@@thegreatdane3627 then you get countries skimping on quality and maintenance to save money, neither way is perfect.
Sounds a lot like the US
The problem with debating the % is politicians will never decide on anything and be unprepared for war. Theres no "timeout we have to deceide the exact correct amount before you invade" 😂
yes, cost-effective methods and military efficacy is each of the 28 European Union members allocating 1 to 2 percent of their military defense spending of GDP to bolster the front lines is a bold strategy. This approach could significantly enhance collective defense by pooling resources to strengthen the most vulnerable borders adjacent to nations openly hostile to the European Union. by adopting a multi-layered approach like defense in depth could significantly enhance NATO's strategic posture. Imagine it as constructing multiple concentric rings of protection, each layer designed to slow down, deter, or detect any potential threats before they reach the core. NATO might establish a credible deterrent by allocating resources to armaments and defenses. This not only reinforces the security of front-line countries but also sends a unified message of solidarity. Historically, alliances have benefited from such collective investment
“It’s not possible.” “No, it’s necessary.”
We need to defend ourselves, not merely from adversaries without the help of the USA, but from the USA itself.
5% year by year is not necessary and quite stupid. I speak this as Polish person, the one of the few countries that actually hits 3% goal this year, because we ordered so much weapons from Korea and USA, we won't be making same orders year by year because it doesn't make sense. It's a very stupid American view to require all countries, especially massive economies of Europe to spend 5% each year, we don't have like 8 aircraft carriers each, nor we need them. It makes sense to make a bulk order one year and then to move the military budget next year to other domain like education or healthcare, we aren't going to become American and drop healthcare just because Trumps demands so much money in defense.
Defence spending needs are less when you don't fight proxy wars around the world. Europe should have a very powerful, high tech defensive force. It does not take 5% GDP if you don't want to be encircling nations in multiple island chains, fighting proxy wars and destabilising governments that hurt your fragile capitalist egos.
@@felisenpai9625 someone has not seen the writing on the war, a big war is coming sooner than expected
@@felisenpai9625 And i wont allow my country to sacrifice billions defending a continent that does not respect itself or my country by securing its future freedom.
You say you wont drop healthcare but you might have to if the US leaves NATO and your country does not spend what it needs to ward off russia.
I actually see my country spending all this cash on your defense as one of the many reasons why i dont have free healthcare and free college.....ironic.
Poland is one of the few NATO members who can say anything since they hit above the mark on defense spending and we respect them alot for it.
Amerikan parasite. @sun110
Poland saw/remembered what happened in 1939 and said “Hold My Beer Guys.”
it wouldnt be a century without Poland being in danger, ey?
@@KiyujaThe 16th century was quite good. but in the 19th century Poland didn't even exist
I could see us spending 3.5% of GDP on defence, but 5% is ridiculous
We're in an interwar period, I'm sorry you don't see the danger that's approaching.
@@Ryanowningthe danger is Russia and they are flopping in Ukraine, I think having a basic eu army to develop European military manufacturing and provide a decent security measure to Europe and a 2% target for member nations will keep Europe safe, and that can be higher or lower depending on circumstances
@@Ryanowning The fact is that even now Europe's total defense spending is higher than the main threat Russia (who are at neatly 6% of GDP atm). What is needed aside from a minimal of 2-3% is better coordination of buying weapons and ammunition and do more of it within europe to lessen dependence on the ever more mercurial US.
I agree.. 3.5% maybe even 4% is shit gets even worse.
But with MAD and France's nuclear umbrella I do think 5% is a bit absurd especially since they don't even reach 5% themselves.
5% is about right. Europe has a whole lot of catching up to do if you're going to regain any credibility from a defense perspective.
Sure it's possible to spend 5%. Just go 37 trillion dollars in debt too and you're good to go.
If the USA spends 5% they go bankrupt faster 😂
Hows that EU economy 🤔 🤣
(from 15% behind to 30%)
I hope we do withdraw from NATO, and i hope you get to see the invasion you cant stop cause you were too mad at daddy america 😂🤣🤣 Slavic Union has a better ring to it
The problem is not spending 3% or 5%, but rather having 27 armies repeating the basics of each of the armies multiplied by 27, thus not reaching the most important weapons, which are the most expensive and which mark the difference in the defense of a country, we must fight for a common defenseEuropean and not depend on the US.
Not very efficient
I'd rather it be 26. I don't want Ireland to participate in any EU army.
Europe is finally talking about their logistics problems of having 27 different kits!
@@joejoe5071You don't think I need it.
27 isnt happening, Ireland and Austria are neutral and not open to this idea at all
If Europe was to spend 5% then there wound't be even any need for US help.
There's a novel idea. Defending oneself.
That’s great for Europe and great for America 5% should be the target. We don’t have to take care of you and you can take care of yourself and prevent being colonized by Russia. A win win we would call this.
Your point being? You want us to be reliant on usa or spend more to be independent militarily? Id like some kind of both..
Blood suckers
GOOD. The US shouldn’t be a world police. You spend money on your defense, we spend money on our defense, we stay in our respective continents except for trade and tourism. That is an ideal world.
Latvian President spoke this morning on national TV and told that spending on defense will be somewhere from 4-5 % 👀
Tbf Latvias 3% is not the same as a German 3%
Are you one of those guys that has micro P nes ? 🙃
@@darthvader4338 You're right. Germany is much wealthier and can far more easily afford to spend 5%.
Good. The Baltics, Poland and Finland should work together to an army and fortifications capable of stopping, or significantly slowing, a Russian advance. Because otherwise if Trump pulls out of Nato, we'll get a repeat of 1939 (Britain/France/now Germany nominally being with us, but not giving much support) which will be much more costly than 5% of gdp.
But Ukraine, a much poorer country than us showed it could be done.
@@stormelemental13 I don't think how it works
It will make sense if EU starts developing / buying most of its equipments, weapons and ammunitions locally...
However, I doubt Trump would like it if US' military industrial complex was to lose its biggest client... creating a strong competitor in the process
But that's probably what's going to happen.
Trump has shown that the US is no longer a reliable partner.
Not really a European problem is it?
We have Saab. Swed here
@@ulfdanielsen6009it is actually, because thats basically why the US allowed for Europe to spend so little on their own military for so long, so they can become dependant on the militaro industrial complex of the US.
Hell they went so hard on that theres several instances of countries wishing to buy more local like Belgium and Switzerland i believe who wanted to buy Rafales, European plane, but one visit from the US president and by the next week, immediate shift towards buying even more expensive and more US dependant F-35.
You might say its because theyd get it faster, except neither Switzerland or Belgium NEEDS the stuff in a Hurry, they could afford to wait a really long time so long as the contract made France pay for delay etc... Its quite litteraly just because buying American means keeping better relation with the US, thus staying in their favor
😂😂😂
The usa spends 3.5% and that includes the cost for 128 military bases. They are there for usa security not for anybody else.
They are not there for neither USA nor any country's security. They seem to be there to play a function in achieving the secret organization's goals - this secret organization governs all these countries. For example, it apparently wants to replace the current russian secret organization, with its own members.
We pay for US bases in Europe. We also pay for maintenance of US nukes in Europe. Don't be fooled.
You do realize that NATO even if it costs the US more than it costs the others is still beneficial for the USA?
The USA has an empire wether you like it or not and with all empires, once they retreat back to their core territory and isolate themselves is when the downfall starts.
I fully agree with Trump as an European that Europe needs to spend 5-6% of GDP on defence, but saying the US is footing the bill and not getting anything in return is rediculous, the west collectively has the influence it has because we stick together, without it the world would be a wild west.
@Joey-ct8bm and the other 200+ bases? for usa intrest only
@@teaser6089
I agree with you that Europe does not benefit from Nato. But how do people in the US benefit from Nato exactly?
We should simply allocate a 3,5% on *Made-In-EU* stuff.
I'd rather have the rest 1,5% invested in the Healthcare Sector so we don't develop some Luigi Mangione's here in Europe too...
😏😏😉😉
@@oosidewalkoo Limiting to just the EU is self-defeating, placing arbitrary protectionism above security. It needs to be the whole of NATO, excluding the USA, and - indeed - _especially_ the UK from the EU’s perspective, given it being such a large European nation, regardless of the childish nonsense (on *both* sides) of Brexit.
@
I don't agree at all on what you just said but I respect your opinion, man.
I'd say if Europe takes smart decisions and does very good investments, in 10y we should be able to leave NATO and adopt a "Neutrality" position if we'd become a Confederation of EU member states
@ How is limiting options for self-defence just to arbitrarily keep to an exclusive “club” a good idea? If the UK (or Canada, or other non-EU allies) has a manufacturing capacity and/or technical capability to make something the EU is lacking in that would help the EU defend itself from Russian aggression refusing it isn’t noble or wise, it is the definition of pettiness.
@
No. It's you "the definition" of stupidity, man. Big European Efforts towards UNITY wins about a population of 600 Million people on this continent.
We can do pretty much everything except for some small / cheap things here in Europe. We don't need anyone other than OURSELVES.
Is it really that big of a deal if we get a luigi over here? Millions of people die every day, he only killed one guy. Like I don't praise the guy but as far as terrorists are concerned his damage was minimal.
This feels like... a waste of money. Like if you only consider how much you spend it's like throwing money at the problem hoping it gets solved. You should invest? Yeah sure, but last couple of conflicts have shown us that spending millions on vehicles that could be destroyed with a $200 drone makes no sense. EU should work smarter, not harder.
How about both?
Tanks and drones fill different roles on the battlefield. You can not advance over an open field with just drones, that is a job that tanks are great at. At the same time a tank can not observe behind enemy lines, something drones are great at. They both have a place and a time. The place and time for tanks or others AFVs just isn't a static front lines.
The problem with the conversation around military spending is not whether if it should be increased, it is that we are focusing around spending to reach a GDP goal. Instead of spending based on desired capability. Something that does actually cause a lot of money to be wasted. In many countries, including my own, you now see military expansion being done budget by budget, instead of being based on a master plan.
"Can be destroyed" isn't set in stone. The new tanks being researched in the EU come with 30mm autocannons with tracking radars specifically to target and destroy incoming drones for only a few dollars.
@@kianlakchi7182 You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I agree with Zeq, EU should work smarter, not harder.
You can still spend 5% on research and Innovation for the weapons of the future. You don't have to spend it on drone targets. It might actually kick start the whole innovation ecosystem in Europe
Trump is calling for 5%, which he knows can't be reached, to give himself a better excuse to leave NATO. John Bolton, the then defence secretary in Trump's first term said Trump almost left NATO in 2018, but was persuaded not to by the adults in the room. There are no adults in the room this time around.
But honestly why does america need to be in nato? Look at the comments people are ok with 5% spending but don't want it to go to the US. Which is understandable they want to help their own country. Then some others don't want to spend 5% while still saying Russia wants to take over Europe. So then what Purpose does the US serve? What do we get out of this partnership?
@@hawkeyemihawkgettingmoneylord As a Swede i find it incredibly dumb that we joined NATO, it became clear during the joining process that russia is not as big of a threat as was thought, and Turkey forced us to do some unfortunately very questionable stuff. And now this increased spending at the recommended expense of welfare? Fuck that.
@@hawkeyemihawkgettingmoneylord Cos' Nato is a wall that keeps the peace.
a Wall the USA Build of other Nations prevent another World war.
if the USA pulls out of Nato it also means having to pull all of their troops back stationed out in the world.
meaning the USA would lose all of its vital military positions too.
because of the USA is not a member of Nato Alliance they lack the international backing to remain in those positions.
Further more if the USA pulls out of Nato.
said members don't need to listen to what you've to say either in Nato matters.
which would also harm the USA's military industri.
Because once again You are now leaving all of these for the most part pretty rich nations alone to develop their own independence from the USA as a whole.
which will leave a Vacant seat of power for either China or guess what?
Russia to slide in and fill.
Heck Zelenski is hoping for a Nato membership and to have Ukraine forces take over the geo-political military positions that the American troops are occupying today.
Nato is one of the biggest leverages the USA Holds over other Countries over here In Europe.
Letting go' of it could leave it extremely woundable .
as the leader of the free world.
Exactly. There is no purpose in these 5% other than the US not applying article 5. This idea sits well with the Trump voters.
That's more reason for Europe to spend more. If Trump withdraws now then you are screwed
3 months ago all the experts were claiming that Russia’s plan to spend just over 5% if GDP on defence for the next 5yrs was unsustainable & would lead to economic collapse but now we are expected to believe the far more diversified & probably vulnerable economies of NATO can do it with no problem.
And before that they lost credibility by saying Russia was officially out of ammo and men every month for 2 years 😭
They are spending way more then 5% and have been for years
@@HitachiTRQ-225without north Korea they might have been out of shells. Kim gave Putin 5 milion shells and hundrets of balistic missles, iran gave thousands of drones and Also gave balistic missles
@@cisarovnajosefina4525
„Yet to this day, Russia still outproduces nato in artillery ammunition by over 30%“
-Ukrainskaya Pravda
@HitachiTRQ-225 yeah they also use much more then 30% more in their war
I agree with Trump. We need to focus on building a military complex that is self-sufficent and does not require any foreign equipment. By creating a closed system and creating an EU army, we do not need NATO. By focusing on a massive nuclear arsenal we will not need to trust the US against Russia. Perhaps not what he had in mind, but he has shown us the way.
Sweetheart... Trump definitely doesn't want a self-sufficient Europe, he wants a Europe that's going to spend 5% of its GDP in US' military industrial complex... that's all !
Yep. “Be careful what you wish for” could certainly end up applying to Trumps rhetoric 😁.
I don’t however wish for the EU to become what the US is now. I see two possible strategies ahead of us.
1. My first priority is to continue the trans Atlantic partnership, although with the EU being more self sufficient. This is to support and strengthen a global order based on mutually beneficial trade and friendly cooperation between democratic countries. This does however require for the US to be a good faith actor, which Trump puts into question.
2. If the US becomes too unreliable, then we need a highly integrated European defense union inside the EU, complimented by strong alliances with other willing European nations such as the UK and Norway. However globally, we should take a more neutral stance, not getting involved.
Bingo!
Trumps an idiot but this is one thing he has done that will benefit NATO and as an american im glad that the EU is waking up and will stop relying on american money and strength to defend itself.
Even if america leaves NATO the EU will consolidate into a closer group and offer a rival to america, russia and china and hopefully act as a buffer zone if it does not.
The worlds economy will suffer for a bit but afterwards it will boom like never before and as an american i know mine will be at the top.
This is a win win situation for all.
You people can barely hit 2% yet you think you can just replace America's military industrial complex like nothing? Sorry to break it to you that was a good idea 30 years ago when you still had time and money to build your own. That times gone Europe if broke your stuck with the US for at least 30 more years.
@@HappyCatholicDanewhy isn't America leaving Nato on your list? You just want us to keep doing majority of the weapons Manufacturing and spending?
It's a bit unfair to assume we can do 5% when the US can have a gigantic budget deficit and raise the debt ceiling every year but EU countries have to follow Maastricht guidelines
Keyword here: USD is the world's reserve currency. Make the Euro the reserve currency and the U.S. would crash economically. That's how serious USD dominance is to the U.S.
@@TheKyosanim62 Something have to back world reserve currency. What does EU have rn? Strongest Military like the US? High Tech Industry like the US and China? Manufacturing power like China?
Renegotiate the Maastricht agreement. We need to be able to increase military and R&D spending without triggering that stupid excessive deficit procedure. Otherwise, the EU has no chance to compete with the rest of the world. That being said, 5% minimum is too much. 3-3.5 % would be enough. And we need to stop buying American equipment and weapons.
Go cheap on defense!!! I wanna see russia's new empire!! Dont ask daddy US to help, you think hes only there for himself so he should act that way, might as well be guilty of what they accuse you 🤣🤣
I think Europe would be much more inclined to spend more if we had a defence industry, and the money could stay in our continent. Maybe we should use this as an opportunity to do things at EU level, so we can share the burden and nobody has to be in too much pain. We really need those treaty reforms, why are they still stuck? This is not something that can be done at the national level, beholden to national politics. Not even the US would be able if all states were individuals.
But we do have a defence industry? Most of the larger countries produce the majority of their own equipment.
WAKE UP Europe before it is too late.!! We need Serious leaders.
If we spend anything we will need to spend it only on European companies.
GDP spending is a stupid way to measure the effectiveness of a military. Who knows what the money is spent on? I mean it can go to things that won't actively improve the fighting ability of a military, like for pensions, veteran healthcare, the upkeep of global base network etc.
I want to know how much money is spent on the existing equipment's upkeep, procurement of new equipment and how much is spent on active personnel. Give me the numbers of how much things there is, how much are bought by category and how many men is on the payroll, and how much are they trained. Nothing else matters.
Yeah, the US military budget is inflated because medicaid for military vets is counted in, which it isn't for any European countries as far as I know since they are just part of the ordinary healthcare systems.
Before the war started, russia, the UK, France and Germany were all spending a similar amount on defence. But with very different results.
France got a fairly capable military, with an aircraft carrier, nuclear submarines etc. While Germany does not, despite spending the same as France.
The USA is not only active in NATO, but also in the Pacific, for example, so they have higher expenses. France also has overseas territories, so it has interests beyond those of NATO.
Every time the USA intervenes somewhere, refugees come to Europe, especially to Germany, and this should also be taken into account in such a Nato-budget.
But those migrants are the benefit not a burden so Germany should be thankful to USA for having possibility to be able to acquire such a big numbers of valuable skilled people.
@@KulturystaChaosu I hope this is sarcasm. Because some Germans genuinely believe this statement word for word.
@@deviousN of course its a sarcasm 😃
@KulturystaChaosu, they are a benefit if they work and don't receive government subsidies and I think I read a article that says that only 50% off all migrants that came from the middle east works and the rest depends on government subsidies
@@KulturystaChaosu Every year (since 2016) the costs in Germany for refugees and asylum are 27 billion euros per year. A considerable sum that should definitely be taken into account when considering the NATO budget.
Bruh people tend to forget that both Germany and the EU give a lot more FINANCIAL aid to Ukraine then the US does. It would be unfair to not count the untold billions in aid as defense spending, because it's the only thing allowing Ukraine to literally invest a third of its economy (not the state budget, mind you) to defeating the orcs.
True, ukraine only exists thanks to germany. But everybiody is so ungrateful that i will vote against ukraine aid in a few days. They dont deserve it better!
Bruh, it would be be unfair to disqualify America's spending on Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan just because they're in the pacific. Europe needs to stop pretending they're the entire world and realize that it's WORLD war 3, not Europe war 3.
@HedgehogZone your ip says russia
@@Eshika-qo9rk nah, he posted that comment in germany and he speaks german.
he's just cosplaying germans in 1939. they love being allied to russians.
Complete lie, without the US financial aid and equipment i would love to see how you guys stack up against russia. We've done our part. Bring on 5%!!
Not even the US spends 5% lmfao
we spend 13%. A simple google search tells you this
@dblum it's 3.4549% of GDP. It's 13% of the federal budget. The nato requirement is as % of GDP, not as % of national budgets.
We dont need to, we already can defend ourselves. Europe currently ONLY stands because of the fear of US retaliation.
I hope we withdraw from NATO and russia does what it likes 👍 and i hope you live to see the consequences of your own softness.
The EU countries count healthcare and veterans benefits in their defense spending while the US does not.
It's not about more spending, but smarter spending. Watch Russia, spends a lot but it's results are questionable at best
Its results are still high enough to take europe 🤣 esp if daddy USA decides not to help you, and honestly at this point... i hope we dont.
@@wvvwwvwvvsure? Europe got strong countries stronger then your country American kid lol 😂
You literally couldnt beat 2nd poorest nation in europe, and you want to take all of it? Are you that dense?@@wvvwwvwvv
@@wvvwwvwvv Actually if ru managed to take political control over EU it would be usa that would be cooked.
Imagine all those EU companies that make top-tier chip manufacturing machines used by TSMC and nVidia starting to export their stuff to China :)
In the case of France, we are atm not able to get a budget. The political crisis we have is still ongoing and the priorities are not on the miliitary. Moreover we have a pretty large deficit issue and we are expected to decrease spendign pretty much everywhere. It's gonna be very difficult to add another ...50bn? Yeah, not happening.
What really bother's me is the US' attitude. I frankly am sick and tire of the USA's position and demands as if they are the senior partner in a personal union. The cold war is over and uncle Sam's priorities are not that of Europe.
No worries.
Now that most are scratching the 2% mark, he wants 5%.
Once that's achieved, he'll definitely want more.
I think we all know what it's called. We have to invest more, there is no doubt about it, but so that we don't ruin our countries.
Trump is not a statesman but a salesman
Be creative. Lend US dollars from US banks to fund the defecit. France having 100 billion Euros debt is an european problem, France having 100 billion U$ Dollars debt is a problem for the US banks stupid enough to lend them money. Also force US company doing business in the EU using Euros instead of U$ Dollars.
France having crisis? Impossible...never happens at all
France: "WAIT WAIT dont invade france!!! Were in the middle of political issues, its a bad time!!"
Russia: 🫡 "on our way"
As an american i hope we watch, laugh and offer 0 support. You cant live under dads protection anymore, youre like 90 years old... blaming the US will not defend your homelands.
My expectation of a compromise is an official goal of 3.5% (just as much as the US) but then EU governments will find ways to cleverly get it down to about 3%.
Suddenly pension for veterans, costs for upgrading and hardening infrastructure (making it ready for military use), and security assistance to Ukraine and other countries will suddenly all become part of the official defense budget. 😉
Exactly, they'll find creative ways to formally respect the budget whilst practically spending much less
I think part of that is already the case for germany, an insane lot of their military budget not being spent on buying new stuff for their own military but just maintenance and quality of life
If European really believe Russia is a threat and Trump is a mad man who would leave the NATO as soon as the war started, Why do you guys still don't want to spend on military? Why do you guys still want to cheat?
Or investments in dual-use industry or research.
@@Freedmoon44 Still it's good. Maintenance is even more important than new stuff. Because it's about readiness of equipment that is well known to soldiers.
Honestly, I’m in favor of this. More investment is desperately needed. Not only will Europe need to secure her southern borders and defend herself against Russia, there’s a nonzero chance that she’ll need deterrence against the United States. For that same reason, all investment should go to _European_ companies and _European_ capabilities. To rely on America today is madness. The E.U. must be able to stand alone.
A well-coordinated, continent-wide defense-technological-industrial base could also do much to kick-start E.U. innovation and technological development. The Department of Defense is one of America’s largest investors in U.S. tech and engineering companies, and it’s actively working to recruit startups. Europe needs more such funds to encourage her own startup and development ecosystem. The talent and ambition are there: what’s missing is the money.
TL;DR defense policy doesn’t just affect defense. It affects industry, technology, and trade, too: which is to say, _everything._
I know it's necessary, but I hate it, I absolutely despise this. Because of the never ending stupidity people will rather fight each other than look up effective solutions as a whole, global species. Everyone who starts a war for their own gain is already losing and there is no way around it. You always loose when you focus on your own gain by the wrong means, it's either a part of yourself, your close ones, or money etc...
Humanity will never learn sadly, we need to adjust accordingly
the problem is that 5% always seems like a rather small number but considering 5% of the gdp in Germany for example would be almost half of the federal budget in 2023 and I don't think that that's viable.
Literally the great continent of Europe is right now unable to defend herself and it’s a shame and it’s also a shame an American president is pointing this out. France right now has literally nearly no army UK the same Germany the same Italy the same and it’s just wrong.
"How DARE the US let everyone know im naked while i stand in the street naked!!!"
Do you think your enemies were unaware? 🤣🤣
Actually the current state od European armies is the direct result of usa policies after cold war.
usa demanded that EU no longer posed a threat to "poor defeated moscow". Because this could mess up with usa's plans to drag usa into usa-ru alliance vs China.
That's why usa forced EU states to follow arms control deals etc.
Not to mention non proliferation treaty.
If EU had nukes and long range ballistic missiles - we would not fear ru.
It seems like for many people in the comments here, blindly critisizing America is more important than actually thinking about what is good for Europe. Increasing military spending in times of russian agression is really a no-brainer and it will be beneficial for both Americans and Europeans. People here write some mindless slop like "I don't want to do what you tell us, I want to be independent" ignoring the fact that Trump literally told Europe to become independent LOL. Europe needs a MASSIVE increase in military capacity and there is nothing wrong with diversifying supplies to both EU and non-EU suppliers. Obviously the main priority of every country should be increasing domestic military production, but for me as a Pole, it really doesn't matter if we buy some equipment from USA, South Korea, France, UK, Germany, I consider all of these countries as fellow democracies and our allies. Antagonising USA and EU is a bad idea, and it will only serve our enemies, China and Russia. Curiously, it's always the extremes, both MAGA Republicans and Europeand leftists that are trying to destroy transatlantic relations. United we stand, divided we fall, we need to remember that and not let our enemies to divide us.
As an Eastern European i do see a reason to increase the military spending. But not the way it's now, common EU defence spending should be the goal. Reliance on America won't do us any good. Being told to increase our defence budgets and buy more American guns, whilst the Americans ever more strangle EU with it's anti China (EU) laws. They only focus on China even wanting to negotiate peace with Putin and cede vast territories of our backyard all whilst being able to sit behind a pond and isolating themselves should they want to. How long until it's not ukraine negotiated over, but Finland and the Baltics? It is not for America (or Russia for that matter) to decide the borders of Europe.
It's not only possible, it's necessary. All imigrants sitting on benefits out, enhanced rights for citizens only and crank up the military industry again.
I believe it should be less about spending more and, instead more about creating an EU army and integrating our armies!
Trump:"SPEND 5% ON THE MILITARY NOW!!! Or else..."
EU:"Or else what?"
Trump:"Or else... I'd be really mad at you."
EU:"Yeah, no. We prefer welfare."
Italy (Meloni):"YES MY MASTER, ANYTHING YOU WANT!"
Moral of the story, everyone must leave NATO. No NATO? NO % requirement for defence. Problem solved!
Yeah, mabye not
It's not how much money is spent, but how it is spent.
Ngl, I don't think spending is the major issue, is efficiency, right now, not only are our militaries poorly funded, but they are grossly ineficient, a join military structure and manufacturing and development is essencial imo, and I've been saying so for years.
Also it should be an EU requirement to have mandatory military service for men, of basic recruit at least, and an yearly exercise until an appropriate age, or if ailments make it not feasable for the person.
Honestly, the military structure within the EU should be MUCH more standardized and specialized, for example, people in countries that have little or no need for a navy, should train and serve in the navy of countries that would specilize in naval matters, same for Aerial combat and land combat.
Also I think Aside from Army, Navy and Air Force, there should be a division for cyber war, and I mean a full military group, rather than groups inside of other military, federal or governmental institutions.
Also, the EU should seriously stop expanding and focus on consolidation, such as the transportation reformation that's been going on, and I can say, that the funds are being beautifully wasted or even embezeled in some cases.
Which goes to my next point, EU funds used in X country, should have the funds be used under the supervision and with the approvel of at least a couple of people that are NOT afiliated with X country. There's just too much corruption, and Eu funds just keep being missused, it's insane.
Also, there needs to be a generalized ban on using houses as financial assets, they need to be treated as FAMILY investments, not as a means to gain money from, the housing markets keeps getting more and more monopolized and the bubble should burst anytime soon, and with all the problems going on I fear what might happen.
Also implement the damn reformation in preparation for the UBI (Universal Basic Income), with automation and AI jobs will disapear at an unprecedented level and govs need to be prepared for that. I think what should be done is along the following, decrease the work hours from 8 to 6 and have it so that work places have to be open at least for 2 complete shifts, thus promoting hiring and at the same time diminishing workload, that'll also open the door for automation.
Quick example. X company following these rules, before it had 10 employees, now because of the changes, and due to concerns of incresed spending on extra people, the company decides to reorganize it's structure, keeping the 10 people, in this case, some might increase, some decrease. And getting 1 or 2 new machines that automate part of the process, since before they were open from 09:00 to 18:00 and now they are open from 08:00 to 20:00. This way they actually increased their output, there was indeed an early investment cost, but overall costs barely increased and with the mentioned increased output, profit would increase.
Specially since, if people have more free time, and stores being open for longer, the economy would grow.
Also, should be illegal how soon several banks and gov sites close to the public, they should be available 24/7, they are ESSENCIAL services.
As the previous model takes form, eventually the tax system should change from taxing the income of the people, to taxing the income of the companies, ideally to the point where the people simply aren't taxed, also any company operating within the EU would have to have an EU subsidiary and pay it's taxes, that would be standard no matter where in the EU.
Trump is only talking about 5% to make 2% sound like more reasonable
We have to always remember that Russia is in OUR continent. We're the ones who are supposed to be calling for more military spending. Plus the money should be invested in our European military complex not the US
russia shares borders with usa as well, keep that in mind.
@@godnemesis4355 near-irrelevant. neither the US nor Russia are focused on that area, for both countries the logistics to get there are insane, and what would it serve Russia or US anyways?
From reading the comments, alot of people are eager about spending 5% of GDP, but will they be so eager if it means major cuts to medical care and pensions?
Sacrifices will have to be made for Europe to become self reliant. You cant be self reliant without a strong military.
Rather than cutting or reduce spending in other sectors, spending ~5% more of my income on tax is better than the risk of being subjected to foreign rule or coercion. I’m not opposed to gritting my teeth and bearing it. It’s nothing our forefathers couldn’t bear.
@@sanserof7 5 % wouldn´t make Europe selfe reliant. Europe still is a Puzzle of little nations that all have their own weapon companies where a lot of money goes to waste. Maby make a united European army first and then spend the money
Problem with Europe vs the USA is that it is not ony single sovereign nation and thus cannot be successful in a war without the help and leadership of the USA. Simple. Look at the sheer amount of US bases around the world, troops stationed in rich nations like Germany etc. Even if Europe wanted to take the leadership in say a war vs Russia you will have France, Germany and UK wanting control and then smaller states fighting for who sides to be on and not to be on if their candidate is not the leader of an EU army. Wont work.
Why are you presenting it as those are the only two options? Tax the rich.
And even if this would mean cuts it's still worth it to prevent invasion. Otherwise, you live in a country that spends 1/3 of the entire GDP on defense (like Ukraine right now) or end up under occupation in a sanctioned country and reduced to a serf.
It’s not just about the amount of money but where and on what it is spent.
The US may spend 3.5% on defense but beyond that no one even the us pentagon that gets the money knows where it is spent. It repeatedly fail to produce a adequate spending report. Wasn’t it last year it tried to find out for the fourth time but failed.
In my opinion something between 2.5-3 % should be enough.
And what is the conclusion of this? This video doesn’t make sence without excluding non-EU countries’ military spendings, with outdated 2023 datas and not even considering rest of the world military spendings?
Why did we watch this? Whats the purpose of the video? What dis we compare exacly?
I'm sorry, but using Sweden as the example for how the the whole of scandinavia feels about the situation, is a bit weird, and especially in the cotext of trump, because scandinavia has some of the highest spendings on social welfare in the world, compared to their GDP per capita, so i don't think that scandinavia is even remotely close to being happy with trumps proposal on 5% of GDP, not even sweden, but instead they might be open to discussion on maybe putting the minimum around 2.5% or 3% of GDP.
as a swede living in norway all I see is people shaking their head regarding that 5% and I still have a lot of friends that love the military.
What is the meaning of collective security if one has to spend that much ? If the security is collective, it should reduce the bills rather. 👏
Its not collective, the only reason Europe still exists is the mere threat of american military retaliation.
You would be russian or chinese in about 2 weeks without US support.
@wvvwwvwvv hey mate, I am not a European by the way. Anyways, I just gave a perspective. Collective defense alliances are meant to ease the defense burdens, not to increase it.
@wvvwwvwvv I mean that should be true for the US as well, they shouldn't have to spend gigantic amounts of tax money either.
I like how Poland is already almost 5 percent. They are cooking.
Not the only one who does so. But I guess your main and ONLY concern are the Russians.
@@georgedevries3992 2026 for sure 5 %
Whatever the percentage 2% - 5% it needs to be unanimous. The spending should be mostly in each respective country but if their country cant provide then outsource only to other nato countries.
We will only be strong together, period.
No Trump fan, but I mean, correct is correct lol, if we had upped our spending earlier, we would be better prepared to deal with Russia now.
I am not sure why but people often forget Trump wasn't the first American politician to criticize NATO partners lack of spending. It was Robert Gates and many of his points are now coming to fruition.
I am from Portugal, To me it makes no sense that we should pay 5% when our country can barely pay itself, war sing a threat (only economic due to the backlash)
1% is for truly peaceful times (like a few years after the Soviet collapse but before the change of millennium)
2.5% sounds like a reasonable not so peaceful "peacetime" spending target
5% is for active war times
10% is for when you're starting to lose in said war times
And anything higher is for when you're fighting an existential threat that will not allow you to exist as a free nation/people after the war is over
5% gdp spending on military is 'we are going to be invading Russia' levels of military spending, for defense it's total overkill
Thank you for expressing exactly how I feel about european defence spending. Can't wait for next video
Those spending 5% rely on the EU for money too, and it’s not like their standard of living is high compared to others either.
Fantastic video like always!
I am not against higher defense spending per se, but I am missing some crucial aspects in this debate.
1. How highly inefficient European, especially German, military spending are and that by just pouring more money into it doesn't necessarily produce a better outcome. We need to become smarter about our spending, by combining capabilities in EU and reduce inefficiencies
2. We are talking a lot about how much we should spend in GDP terms, I admit that I don't have a better variable to compare spending, but nobody I know directly knows what 2, 3 or even 5 % spending means for a national budget. Just talking about Germany, they currently spend 11% of their national budget on defense, under 3.5 % it would be 1/3 already, where does that money come from, from the welfare state, while anti-democratic and pro Russian parties are on the rise often due to social inequalities. This is a security aspect as well. (not to mention the 50% budget the 5% goal would take)
3. We stopped talking about how we could reduce the need of just arming ourselves. The great US who always criticizes the EU for not fulfilling their promises on the 2% goal - correctly so - is not fulfilling the NATO spending goals when it comes to development funds which would reduce the need of higher defense spending. If we are not able to contribute to efforts that reduce the global crisis potential, we run the risk of entering a arms race, that benefits nobody. But be clear I am not advocating for being naiv about it as well. But security can't be produced by simply having big military.
maybe 4. because a lot of people mentioned it, our security infrastructure and production must be independent from the US that also means that we can't continue buying weapons from them and need to be able to have own sufficient European production capabilities.
If the defence spending is spend on domestic Industry it will boost economic growth but it needs to be spent domestic and not abroad.
As is often the case, getting a little silly with the comparisons. I know emerging economies love PPP and it can be useful but like all things involving currencies it is imperfect at best - can you buy a house and phone in India for a lot less than Germany for instance, sure, but which phone and house do you really want?
Everyone agrees 2% is (never was) sufficient; 5% is just ridiculous however, for the bigger countries that have many other commitments. We can all see this is going to be negotiated down to about 3% and will include a few years to get there. Looking at countries currently in a hot war isn't that helpful, when you are in a 'hot war' you spend literally whatever it takes no matter what.
On a personal level, I do think the country I live in needs to be spending between $105-$115 billion on defence listening to the experts. What is infuriating is that there is already enough tax money collected to be doing this, we just have an usual ability to waste tax money where I live. The gov spends over 1.2 trillion but whether we are wasting it on the most expensive high speed line in the world, or the most expensive nuclear power ever, or hundreds of millions spent designing bridges for our biggest city that they didn't even bother to build, it is just nonstop waste. Then when you include all the oversea's development assistance which amounts to tens of billions each year - which I don't understand why it is taxpayers here paying for the education of children in a country on the other side of the planet when that country is spending its tax money on other things for example (& they hate us either way). In fact, I dread when the pm flies out the country because every time he shows up at a conference he agrees to give away yet more billions of taxpayers money. I think 3 to 3.5% is enough, I don't believe eu countries will make any real progress towards integrating defence and I also don't believe that the usual laggards will keep to their agreed % of gdp as soon as the eyes of the press are on something else. We can easily repel Russia as it stands (despite media hysteria [remember, everyone always has an agenda]), but hard power counts and if it 'kicks off' in Asia we won't be any help if we can't project 'power' so that's the theatre that matters.
Very brave to post video man, kudos!...hopefully things dont get hardcore internationally anytime soon.
Closer the possibility of war, people will be more accepting the higher price
People must remember that there were valid reasons for the EU's historically relaxed stance on defense spending. Before 2021, there was no active war, and while Russia frequently engaged in saber-rattling, these actions were not unprecedented. The annexation of Crimea in 2014, however, should have been a major wake-up call-it was a strategically motivated move tied to the Black Sea Fleet's presence on Ukrainian territory.
When Russia began amassing troops near Ukraine, it signaled a clear escalation. Yet, the EU relied on its usual approach of political negotiations and diplomatic pressure, assuming it would be enough. The invasion proved otherwise.
Now, the EU must face reality. Defense isn't just about soldiers on the ground; it's about stockpiles, production capacity, and the ability to scale up rapidly. A credible defense means having the infrastructure to field a massive army within six months, not the years it currently takes. Without this, the EU remains vulnerable.
I'm from South-East Asia and I would like to know what Europeans think about this situation. Should they keep relying on the US for support or better their own military?
I live in Belgium, 70% seems to agree that we need to spend more on defense. The division here comes from whether we should invest in European arm dealers or American ones and how we are going to fund this. The right wants to reduce social spending in various ways and the left wants to raise taxes for the rich, some call for both.
We largely agree on the goal but not on how to achieve it.
Both, I like having US as an ally but would prefer having our own defence sector and a form of unified military in EU.
I'm actually really happy with what my country of Estonia is doing with procuring Turkish, Israeli and Swedish armaments.
German here, take a look at Ukraine. Do you want to beg for weapons in case someone attacks you?
Having to ask permission to use a weapon in a way that is most effective for you?
To have to fear that the political situation of your "helpers" will cut or completely deny you the necessary resources that keep you and your country alive?
You can answer the question yourself, it's actually not that difficult to decide
I support both. We need to drastically increase our defense spending and capabilities but keep our defense cooperation with the USA
For many small and medium countries, mostly on the east side, there is no alternative to US Army. For example Baltic States - Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have only aroud 6m people together. Even if they spend 10% of GDP they have no chance against potential agession. French and British armies are underfunded for years. Germany' Bundeswehr is in even worse condition. The only real military power that can stop potential russian agression is US Army.
Poland has been spending above 2% for last 10 years. This amount will increase to 4.7% in 2025. However big chunk of that money goes to USA and S. Korea. Poland plans to have 1800 advanced tanks. Even if we say half of it is more realistic, there is no production capacity in Europe. Europe produces 50 tanks (Leopard II) per year. Similar situation with rocket artillery and almost every big platform.
It is a problem for Europe. Huge militarily dependence on USA means less independence in economy. More taxpayers money transfered to USA means less jobs in Europe.
West Europe don't want to spend more but want East Euorope to buy from them. East Europeans buys from USA because its faster, sometimes better and cheapper. Plus they think being USA's client makes you safer.
I see lots of comments about people agreeing European countries should spend more, but by having everything manufactured, engineered, developed, etc. in Europe. I'm American and don't disagree with these comments. However, the biggest potential Achilles heel in this thinking is more of the logistical aspect. Because of the proximity of all those countries and how close they are to Russia, China, Iran (etc.) is that the two most high priority targets in a war with China and/or Russia will be 1) communications, and 2) the ability to transport both weapons and munitions to various battlefields and theaters. All the advanced technology in the world does no good at all if it can't be rapidly manufactured and effectively transported to theater. The US is in a way unique, but not necessarily because of the ocean. Strategically, our unified structure/command was built around logistics. For example, our river systems are wide enough, or have been made wide enough for large transports to pass through. It's great for things like farming and produce, but also is important startegically for energy transport, military movement, and even large weapons deployment. Besides the rivers, the terrain was and is an obstacle due to the sheer size of the country, so way back in the 1800s a large and expansive railway system was built and is still maintained, which allows for another option for transport of all logistics (both military and other products). When our roads were initially built, they were built strategically with troop movements in mind. Therefore, it would require a successful attack on multiple levels of core infrastructure to really slow that down. In WW2 we developed something called the Defense Production Act which was a way to rapidly retool/refit private industries, like vehicle (Ford, GM, etc.) to switch over fairly easily from normal production to producing things like tanks, jets, engines, ammunitions (etc.). During the pandemic we saw it put back into use when some auto manufacturers were tasked to build ventilators since there was a shortage worldwide. It showed where we needed to improve on various areas of infrastructure, even though it wasn't a war per se. What I am saying is that Europe would need to undertake massive, expensive and simultaneous things to improve infrastructure for rapid deployment to all countries if attacked, and in multiple ways to transport everything to battlefields. At the same time, it would need to do as many of you suggest by developing its own form of military complex with multiple sources being able to produce various types of necessary equipment, so no one or few attacks crippled any war effort or counter-offensive. All of this would likely cost multiple trillions of dollars since it would need to be done kind of in concert, or within a pretty short period of time.... say 15ish years. I agree with many of you, but I can almost promise, any attack in Europe or various countries in Europe will be aimed at logistics, since it really was never developed extensively after WW2. The US are allies, and I don't see Trump pulling out of NATO. What his comments have misinterpreted as is that there are many countries that don't and haven't even spent the 2% to 2.5% of GDP on defense, as was part of the charter. The US has bolstered much of that cost. After Russia invaded Ukraine you did see all the countries that border Russia directly immediately up their defense budget as a result. Russia has invaded 2 countries in the last ten years (Crimea in 2014 and now Ukraine), so they obviously haven't felt too threatened by Europe's response. I would take Trump's comments, along with Putin and China's actions as the alarm clock to not wait any longer to start making changes. Because, unless there is a nuclear strike, Europe will be the first targets in any escalating war due to the close proximity, and the fact no country can force project across large bodies of water due to lack of large aircraft carriers and large amphibious assault vehicles. This is where we see China concentrating its build up, but it is due to them wanting Taiwan and not really having a realistic goal of assaulting the US homeland. Edit: incidentally I see some talking about 5% spending to be too massive. However, the US currently only spends about 3.5 to 4% GDP on defense. In WW2 that number grew to near 40%. Personally, I would like to see us spend closer to around 7% on military. This would be a deterrence because China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and India combined could not match that expenditure. That in itself is a deterrent for war. It would be a little more expensive for us, but not nearly as expensive as a large scale war would be if it broke out, and would save probably millions of lives globally, and save any mandatory military enlistment (at least here in the US).
don't use the EU on a video about NATO
Good episode! 👍
It was known but ignored.
A temporary high mark is needed to make up for how behind europe is. Then it should come back down to a reasonable level.
Spending more money on defense is all good and nice. I agree. But it is also important to make sure that money spend on military (and not only there - money spend on ANYTHING) are being utilized as efficiently as possible. Because, what is the point of spending huge amounts if they will be lost to corruption and inefficiency? Spend more? YES! But wisely and with efficiency.
Lithuania announced it will spend 5-6% of GDP on defence from 2026.
What for? Makes zero sence.
@tomorrowneverdies567 fancy new tech as well as needed weaponry.
@tomorrowneverdies567 if your Greece would live next to Russia - it will make 100 sence
@@TehFigaroProject why?
@tomorrowneverdies567 lol, why? maybe because during the past 100 years all russian neighbours were attacked or occupied by kremlin...go check eastern europe history btw and then (I hope) you will make some sence
I am open to the idea to spend 5% of GDP on defence, but it also really matters which other aspect will suffer from this increased budget such as healthcare and what not
I have nothing against 5% of my tax being spent on defence. The problem with taxes only exist when we do not know what they will be used for. In this case we know it will be used against the threat posed by Russia and China. Money well spent! And I hope more of my taxes will be used to send arms to Ukraine. Ukraine is doing the job none of us want to do on our doorstep. I am grateful
LOL.😂
You did the math wrong. It's 5% of GDP not 5% of your taxes. Depending on the country you live in this could be between 50 to 100% of your taxes.😅
@@darthmaul8912 Germany GDP per capita nearly 50k. My gross salary slightly under 100k yearly which is basically cut in half to 50k net after tax. If 5% of the GDP is spent on defense that accounts for 2.500€ each person early. That is 5% of my taxes 😘
@@SHAKINGBELIEFS You did the math wromg again. GDP = gross domestic product = Bruttosozialprodukt
That is the sum of ALL domestic financial activities and not the annual federal budget.
Germany has a GDP of about 4 trillion €. The federal budget is about 400 billion € so just about 10% of GDP. 5% GDP for Germanys military would mean about 50% of it's budget not 5%.
In case you don't know that's 25.000€ or half of all the taxes you pay.
Even more than that in the next years.
The CDU pledged to reduce taxes by 100 billion. The FDP promises 188 billion Euro. And the AfD is somewhere in between.
400(budget) - 188(taxcuts) - 220(military) billion
Did you notice somethig? If the right keep their promises you will be paying less taxes. Let's say 40k but 100% of that money will go to military.
Good luck raising kids or if you lose your job.
@@darthmaul8912 Well, it's a bit misleading, and actually, both of you are wrong. The Federal Budget, or Bundeshaushalt, is not the entire German Budget (I did not know this myself until 10 minutes ago).
There are also expenditures for the States (Bundesländer), the Municipalities (Gemeinden), and Social Security (Sozialversicherung). Combined, this amounts to around 2 trillion.
So 5 GDP percent would be about 10% of the total German Budget, or as you said, around 50% of the Federal Budget.
Although the military is (more or less) fully funded by the Federal Budget, things like streets or Railways (which almost exclusively receive funding from the Federal Budget) would face significant problems because nearly half of the money would disappear. Most of the other areas would be worse off but should remain relatively stable, since they also receive support from other levels. (Of course, this assumes the Federal Budget stays the same. In reality, it would probably see a massive increase.)
@@michael91009 Why are you thinking we were both wrong?
I did talk about the FEDERAL BUDGET the entire time. Which is about 400 billion as I stated. In fact since they government didn't release the full numbers yet I was quite optimistic to state 400 billion because 2023 it was 356 billion €.
As you stated yourself it is the federal government who did spend for its military not the state or regional governments.
Good god that Bavaria didn't got their own army (yet).😅
Stating that the about 600 billion for social insurance is part of Germanys budget would be false. No politician would dare to touch that money. Even less for military expenses. Especially not the CDU or SPD who got by far the oldest demographic of all parties.
You could argue that not ALL taxes collected goes to the federal budget which is in fact correct but I never claimed that this would be the case.
My argument still stands. 5% of GDP for military would be madness. West-Germany did this in the 50s but with much higher taxes (especially for the rich) and without debt ceiling (Schuldenbremse).
Merz is a former Blackrock employee and Weidel worked for Goldman Sachs. Both and Lindner promised to cut taxes especially for the rich while increasing military spending at the same time. Ether they are lying or this will collapse soon because the math doesn't hold up to their promises.
Lindner even stated that Germany should "mehr Miley wagen".
Which is funny because Argentina is the only OECD country which performed even worse than Germany in 2024 (-0.3 vs -1.2%).
That's like beeing second last in a race and turn around seeing one guy in the distance even slower than you and decide to copy his workout routine for the next race.🤦🏼♂️
I did bet with my best friends on the year 2029.5 for social collapse at the latest more than 10 years ago. Not with money because what would that be good for in case I'm right?🤣
Lithuania is considering to increase the spending on defense to 5.5-6.0% of GDP per year. The decision will be made this year, probably sometime before the summer kicks in.
5% for every NATO country is ridiculous, lets keep the aim between 2 and 3% so defence gets the boost it so desperately needs and our standard of living stays up there.
Yeah 5 percent is absolutely ludicrous.. 2 is understandable, 3 is still realistic and makes sense with the current state of the world, but 5 is just insane
The only way I see spending 5% of GDP as long-term viable is if we are engaged in an active war or if we invest all that money locally. I bet that American guy wouldn’t be happy if every other NATO country stopped buying American military equipment unless an equal investment was made in return. A 2.5-3% budget might be viable long-term, but the reality is that most nations are already drowning in debt. Increasing the any specific part of the budget that quickly is not good for financial stability.
Somehow Poland and Lithuania have no problem with 5%, I wonder why that is?
it is important that the increase is on
well thought out things so that you don't just throw money away on bad things to increase gdp, every bit should be the best for the whole
Why not tax the rich?
ask Trump to tax Trump.
@@mariotomazzoni6523 I meant in the Europe
@@rocketman1058 yeah, UK should tax Trumps Golf course more.
@@rocketman1058 and Germany should tax Elon Musk more for his Tesla Megafactory.
@@mariotomazzoni6523 after trump imposes tariffs on the EU, they probably will
I would propose - if you're not meeting x%, you fill the gap with people. I.e. the less you spend, the more people you will have to send. That would quickly turn the priorities
Ain’t going to happen. 5% would mean NATO was paying for the US defence of the Pacific and South China Sea; nothing to do with Europeans. Less than half of what the US spends on defence is committed to defending the NATO area. Any European contribution to the defence of the Pacific and Far-East will only ever be a tiny fraction of defence spending. Conversely, the US has a huge interest in defending Central and Western Europe.
Not to mention that China is NOT Europe's enemy. China is seen here as great investors and they are welcome.
@@trollfake9578 China isn't Europe's enemy but you can be assured that Europe is China's enemy. The other side always gets a vote.
Thank you for the video.
Eu:n kassan pohja näkyy jo..etenkin Suomessa. Konkursseja tuhansia
As much as I dislike military spending, sometimes I wonder if it's better to spend it and have a stronger deterrent.
A 2% is slightly acceptable, everything above that is wartime spending and absolutely unacceptable as of now. Even though we are in a soft war with Russia, we have NO justification for increasing spending, especially when European nations are in trouble both socially and economically. It's not our concern if Americans don't enjoy a welfare state, but I (like many others in the continent) enjoy it and don't wish to give it up in the name of defense.
I support this message 🎉
Exactly! Even the 2% is much more than China spends! Let that sink in!
you didn't show the PPP value for the Eu countries only for China and Russia also how much money are going to the US for equipment, services etc
It would be ideal. We should drastically cut pensions and increase military spending
What is the point of being in NATO, if you still have to spend so much on defense?
@@andrejparunovic And whats the point for countries bordering Russia to be in NATO with western European members don't give a shit because they know that in case of War Easter Europe and USA will be fighting not them so they can have shitty military.
Huh, I'm surprised at your closing statements in a very positive way. I agree with all the sentences which I never would have predicted from this channel.
As for the defence target we should aim above 3% to compensate for underinvestment in the past decades. 5% is not feasible in any near term future. 3% can be accommodated easily by cutting useless spending. It would be nice to at least build basics in Europe like ammo factories.
good, we are Europeans, what are we if we are weak?
enjoy having public services cut then
@@manuag3886 enjoy living under Russia then softy
@@manuag3886 I have a feeling there's a lot that can be cut in many European countries that wouldn't worsen peoples lives too much.
@@manuag3886that's necessary anyway in the long run
@@manuag3886 Public services don't help that much when the likes of wagner arrive at your doorstep.
I would totally agree on a 5% strategic independence spending goal for the EU and European NATO countries. Not just the military itself, but also energy independence, military industry, resource control and aid for Ukraine and other countries at war with our rivals (which may include the US, depending on the actions of their new president)
5% is pretty extreme but the reason for it makes sense. Now 2% is not enough to make up for the lost time Europe has with military buildup.
We do not want to conquer the world like USA.
There is no such a thing as "lost time".
Maybe rather than spending 5% the way we have been - on separate projects for each country or perhaps a few countries together - we could spend 3% on fewer, but larger, projects. This will mean less R&D cost when amortised over production runs. The US is spending 3.4%, but they are the superpower, we are not.
But then all of us have to agree on the requirements for these weapon systems. So, I don't think it will happen.
Another thing is, the US has a single military, which means that for example, their air force doesn't just have thousands of fighter aircraft, they also have niche capabilities. Various bombers, transports, etc. EU nations have far smaller militaries, which means we all just cover the basics - the same basics. Sure there is airlift capability, but not of the same variety as in the US for example.
Germany should spend that money on energy independence if anything. People dont understand how much 1% is, but it being said by Trump you don’t expect him to put much thought into that
I'd love for that to happen. Thing is a lot of that has died in the early 2010s and as it stands right now there is a lot of lobbying against it. I'd love to see solar panels everywhere but the focus right now is on other things
@ I still think modern nuclear is the go-to, even if it’s more expensive short term, and our issues are mainly with delivering electricity in our long country, it’s an energy source you can plan around unlike wind and solar, just like coal or hydro, but you don’t have that luxury like we in Sweden do. In the meantime you’ll buy from us, or we’ll buy your coal powered energy when the wind, sun isn’t out.
It’s sad to see anti-nuclear power has culture, tradition and nuclear weapon fears in germany
Merkel did everything bad happening to Germany