Military Review

Military spending of NATO countries. Militarism costs a pretty penny

21
Military spending of NATO countries. Militarism costs a pretty penny

The phrase that only three things are needed for a war - money, money and money again, became a textbook even in the hoary antiquity. Moreover, it corresponds to reality exactly 100%. However, maintaining peace, which, as the North Atlantic Alliance officially declares, is its main goal, is also not cheap, especially if you start arm yourself to the teeth for the sake of peace.


What is the cost of striving to "keep the powder dry" for NATO member states?

Before talking about the current amount of funding by the North Atlanticists of their own "defense", one should recall history question. The decision to annually raise the level of their military spending by the countries of the bloc was made around the end of the 70s at the suggestion of the United States. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was then relatively small, 16 member states, and therefore everyone had to try. True, only Americans, Canadians, Spaniards, Norwegians and for some reason the inhabitants of Luxembourg went further than declarations.

Already two decades later, the question, in fact, has lost its relevance: the USSR and the Warsaw Pact Organization (the former members of which vied with each other began to enroll in NATO) collapsed. There seemed to be no one to defend against. Sighing with relief, the vast majority of European governments began to mercilessly "cut" their own military budgets and cut armies, finding government money much better than building new ones. tanks and rockets.

Everything changed again after the events in the United States on September 11, 2001. There was talk about the formidable "international terrorism" against which a decisive and uncompromising struggle should be started urgently. On which, again, you will have to fork out in unison. They bargained, argued like in a bazaar, blamed each other for their frivolous attitude to world security for 5 whole years, and as a result, in 2006, they came to a certain common denominator of military budgets, seemingly obligatory for all states of the alliance: 2% of GDP.

At that time, 5 out of 26 NATO countries met this criterion at the very least. These are the USA (where they spent twice as much on defense needs), Great Britain, France and the eternal antagonists of Greece and Turkey. All the other members of the alliance, including even the neophytes who were rushing there with all their might (Romanians, Hungarians, Czechs and Baltic people) did exactly the opposite: their military expenditures did not grow from year to year, but decreased. As a result, the total financial contribution of Europe to the North Atlantic cause from 2001 to 2014 “blown away” from 37% to 25%. On average, not 2%, but 1,5% of GDP, or even less, was spent on general defense in the Old World.

In 2014, having successfully staged a coup d'état in Ukraine, but faced with the wrong reaction from Russia, which was expected, the North Atlanticists again became alarmed and once again decided at their summit in Bucharest that over the next decade they would certainly reach the two percent target. ... However, the declarations again for the most part remained declarations: three years later, in 2017, this "standard" was fulfilled by exactly the same number of block members as in 2006. All the same Americans, British, Greeks. Poles and Estonians also joined them.

Neither Germany, nor Italy, nor France, nor even Turkey were willing to spend more than 1,5% of GDP on military needs. Belgium and Spain fell short of 1%. All this (especially the "financial pacifism" of the Germans) terribly angered Donald Trump, who came to power in the United States in 2016. At every international summit he did not get tired of making fire for allies in the bloc and repeating that "the Americans are tired of protecting everyone." And that is to say, in the second year of his presidency, the US contribution to the total NATO budget exceeded 70%.

The next time, Alliance General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg was much more realistic. He expressed a fervent hope that by 2025 the coveted 2% of GDP will be spent on military needs at least half of the states making up the military bloc. Last year, NATO's aggregate budget did grow by 4,6%, exceeding a trillion dollars (the highest level since 2012). More than 72% of this amount, as before, falls on the United States and Canada.

Tellingly, the highest rates of growth in defense spending in recent years have been in the Baltic countries, as well as in Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. However, Poland, with its 2% of GDP and more, is in reality a military budget of more than $ 12 billion, while Germany, with 1,3% of GDP allocated to defense, is investing more than $ 50 billion in the Bundeswehr. Everything is relative, especially percentages and absolute numbers.

How the coronavirus pandemic will affect NATO funding is not yet clear. However, the crisis that has engulfed the entire planet will clearly not contribute to an increase in cash infusions. Now, most of the countries that make up the alliance are faced with the question of saving their own economies, not militarizing them. NATO is unlikely to become more peaceful, but in the near future the alliance will definitely have to save.
Author:
Photos used:
NATO website
21 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Egoza
    Egoza 21 October 2020 18: 07 New
    +2
    So much money for a pandemic and everything by NATO! Abysmal! But if they gnaw at each other, we will applaud! And we will tell you that it's time for them to scatter.
    1. Livonetc
      Livonetc 21 October 2020 18: 15 New
      +1
      Lovely scolding only amuse.
      While the United States, in economic terms, is the number 1 market in the world, they will be pleased in every possible way to the best of their ability and capabilities.
      NATO is a club of interests, nothing more.
      1. Machito
        Machito 21 October 2020 18: 28 New
        +1
        They just don't know the measures. But the Russian Lefty, who has shoehorned a British flea, is not so easy to overtake. Russian ingenuity is worth a lot. And therefore solid asymmetric answers. We bent down the descendants of Genghis Khan, capturing half of his empire, the European Union of Napoleon and Hitler. It's just that it hasn't worked with the United States. We will try.
        And then, all in the classics: Satisfied with the ruins of the White House.
        1. Plastmaster
          Plastmaster 22 October 2020 11: 26 New
          0
          However, they win and squeeze territories. Everything goes on as usual. World carnage, we retreat on all fronts, then winter and we .......... This time this story is covered in darkness. I do not exclude that they will finish it off now. There are too many traitors.
      2. Terenin
        Terenin 21 October 2020 20: 36 New
        +3
        Quote: Livonetc
        While the United States, in economic terms, is the number 1 market in the world, they will be pleased in every possible way to the best of their ability and capabilities.

        And who will not please, they will turn off the hot water and, just in case, hang the leaders of the country in the square.
    2. credo
      credo 21 October 2020 18: 21 New
      -1
      Quote: Egoza
      So much money for a pandemic and everything by NATO! Abysmal! But if they gnaw at each other, we will applaud! And we will tell you that it's time for them to scatter.

      And I would like to hope that the newly admitted "members" from the Eastern (Warsaw) bloc and the non-states of the former USSR will pick up and give not 2%, but 4% or 6%.
      Logically, whoever shouts more about an imaginary threat from the east should pay more, causing hatred among their overlords from the west.
      The "amazing" nation of the Anglo-Saxons does not spare anyone and is ready to rip anyone off to the skin under the guise of protection and good intentions.
      1. Livonetc
        Livonetc 21 October 2020 18: 32 New
        0
        Anglo Skaxes are pragmatic to the core and not surprising at all.
        They are commonplace in their pathological greed and cruelty.
        "Nothing personal just business".
        1. Sergey Obraztsov
          Sergey Obraztsov 21 October 2020 19: 46 New
          -1
          This is not sad, the sad thing is that this has been working for far from the first year, and in fact it continues to work and still works well. Money does not rule the world, but if politics is just a concentrated expression of economics ...
        2. Terenin
          Terenin 21 October 2020 20: 34 New
          +2
          Quote: Livonetc
          Anglo Skaxes are pragmatic to the core and not surprising at all.
          They are commonplace in their pathological greed and cruelty.
          "Nothing personal just business".

          Moreover, the policy of destruction (which is what the Anglo-Saxons around the world are doing) is always simpler.
        3. Plastmaster
          Plastmaster 22 October 2020 11: 31 New
          -1
          Then I read that the Angles are not Angles, but a filthy nemchura (by pedigrees). Well sits at the top. Like a lot of things have been redone specifically for England. For the image.
      2. Terenin
        Terenin 21 October 2020 20: 38 New
        +3
        Quote: credo
        "Amazing" nation of the Anglo-Saxons sparing no one and ready to rip anyone to the skin under the guise of protection and good intentions
        They call it the defense of democracy.
    3. Serpet
      Serpet 21 October 2020 18: 43 New
      13
      There, the lobby of the American military-industrial complex in action. The virus will not pass!
    4. Terenin
      Terenin 21 October 2020 20: 29 New
      +3
      Military spending of NATO countries. Militarism costs a pretty penny
      So what? This is their usual old way of life.
    5. RealPilot
      RealPilot 21 October 2020 21: 21 New
      -1
      It's time for Trump to go out and voice theses about evil Russia and Iran, vigorous North Korea ...
      In the best traditions of the American rocket wink

      The mice cried and pricked, but they continued to chew on the cactus hi

      Nothing personal, only business bully
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 21 October 2020 18: 32 New
    -1
    NATO is unlikely to become more peaceful, but in the near future the alliance will definitely have to save.
    ... The imperialists were never distinguished by their peacefulness smile They need money for something else, the flow of refugees from Africa and the Middle East is growing, they need to be fed from the belly ...
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 21 October 2020 18: 35 New
    -2
    Let them print more dollars and euros.
  5. Blacksmith 55
    Blacksmith 55 21 October 2020 18: 58 New
    0
    Aren't tanks, planes and missiles needed against the virus?
    It's time to throw a cry: 3% for defense.
    1. Sergey Obraztsov
      Sergey Obraztsov 21 October 2020 19: 51 New
      0
      I agree. In view of the outbreak of the coronavirus sirloin, governments will be much more tempted to save money on the army. Which also needs to be kept in isolation from the outside world at this time, which in itself costs a lot. And even if this does not even affect the regular units, then the procurement of equipment and especially NKR is at risk.
  6. FIR FIR
    FIR FIR 21 October 2020 20: 36 New
    -2
    Everything changed again after the events in the United States on September 11, 2001. There was talk about the formidable "international terrorism" against which a decisive and uncompromising struggle should be started urgently.

    What does the terrorists and the army have to do with it? The internal security forces (FSB / FBI ...) must fight the terrorists, but not the army. So here the author confused the concepts. There is no reason in European countries to increase defense spending, since they are already 75 years old and no one threatens. But corporations need billions from the military-industrial complex. They are used to them, they do not want to lose them ..
    Therefore, they came up with "aggressive Russia" ....
    1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
      Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 21 October 2020 21: 44 New
      -2
      > since they are already 75 years old, no one threatens

      There, from 1945 to 1991, peace fighters promised competitions in income to the English Channel at speed for any reason. Since 2008, the heirs of the grandfathers have gone into nostalgia, google it.
  7. the Saint
    the Saint 21 October 2020 22: 04 New
    -9
    We constantly hear the grumbling of retirees entrenched in the Internet trenches, whom we call the "army community", about how "insignificant" against the background of NATO pensions they receive, how unfair a reduction coefficient, why they are not paid enough rations.
    But they continue to serve in retirement, angrily barking and pouring out streams of envious hatred on all prosperous countries, regardless of their affiliation with military blocs, including neutral ones.